The URL can be used to link to this page

2002-11-27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/27/02) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 27, 2002 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT PAUL HAYES, ACTING CHAIRMAN CHARLES MC NULTY, SECRETARY ROY URRICO NORMAN HIMES CHARLES ABBATE ALLAN BRYANT MEMBERS ABSENT LEWIS STONE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 90-2002 TYPE II DONALD GAGNE, JR. PROPERTY OWNER: SAME ZONE: HC-INT. LOCATION: 387 DIX AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF AN 11 FT. BY 17 FT. SHED AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING CODE. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 42-95, BP 02-771 TAX MAP NO. 303.16-1-3 LOT SIZE: 0.68 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-030 DONALD GAGNE, JR., PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 90-2002, Donald Gagne, Jr., Meeting Date: November 27, 2002 “Project Location: 387 Dix Avenue Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of an 11’ x 17’ shed. Relief Required: Applicant requests 13 feet 4 inches of relief from the 20-foot minimum side setback requirement of the HC-Int Zone; § 179-4-030. Criteria for considering Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to rebuild the previously existing shed on the existing foundation. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives might include constructing the shed in a compliant location. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 13 feet 4 inches of relief from the 20-foot minimum requirement may be interpreted as moderate relative to the Ordinance (66.6%). 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be attributed to the applicant’s desire to utilize an existing foundation in which to reconstruct a previously existing shed. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2002-771: 09/12/02, 187 sq. ft. shed. Staff comments: Minimal impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. Should the application be approved, the shed will have a minimal visual impact. The applicant would like to utilize the existing foundation in order to rebuild a shed that had collapsed prior to his purchase of the property earlier this year. Should the project be approved, the applicant would not only be allowed to utilize the existing foundation, but by not having to build the shed in a compliant location, the percent non-permeable area will not increase. Additionally, the applicant plans to demolish an existing 11’ x 23’ chicken coop, which will further decrease the percentage of non-permeable ground. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. MC NULTY-No County. MR. HAYES-Mr. Gagne here tonight? Please step forward. Is there anything you’d like to add to your application or point out to the Board at this time? MR GAGNE-You’ve said everything, basically. MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you. I guess we’ll move right to questions, then. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Is this shed already constructed? MR. GAGNE-I semi put the three sides up, so you can basically get an idea of what’s going on. Right now I just have two by fours holding the sides. 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/27/02) MR. ABBATE-I saw that, and your application, you indicated that there are feasible alternatives. You indicated that, are there feasible alternatives to this variance, you indicated yes. In view of your statement that there are feasible alternatives, why not go to the feasible alternatives that fall within the Code? MR. GAGNE-Well, I was going to, at first, until I started digging down one of the sides of the existing foundation itself. It went deep. It was deep and wide. There was a lot of cement there, and then I started cleaning everything up, and this foundation is in real good shape. So that’s when I started asking questions, and that’s where we are right now. MR. ABBATE-So then your logic, basically, since we have a suitable foundation, a good foundation, it makes more sense to put the structure on that foundation? Okay. Thank you very much. MR. HIMES-One other thing, sir, too, in connection with the existing foundation. That’s just the perimeter, the so called footing thing you’re speaking about goes down four feet. Right? MR. GAGNE-Yes. As a matter of fact, some places went deeper than four foot. Apparently when it was built originally, they wanted to make sure it never came apart again. MR. HIMES-Okay. Thank you. How about the floor itself? MR. GAGNE-Well, the floor, I’ve got to put a new floor in there, but considering it’s been there since, back as far as 1900, it’s not in too bad shape. MR. HIMES-Beneath the floor, is it dirt? MR. GAGNE-It’s cement all the way down through, but it’s broken up. I plan on putting a new flooring in there, but as far as the footing itself, everything’s in pretty good shape. MR. HIMES-Thank you. MR. HAYES-You’ve indicated that you’re going to take down the chicken coop, too, that’s your plan? MR. GAGNE-Yes. I have the chicken coop right next to my barn, and that’s right up tight to the fence. You can’t even squeeze between the side of the chicken coop and the fence, without getting down through there sideways. I want to remove that totally. (Lost words). MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you. Are there any other questions for the applicant from the Board? MR. URRICO-What will you be using the shed for? MR. GAGNE-Just to put my garden tractors in, stuff like that that I’ve got in the barn right now. MR. URRICO-Okay. Thank you. MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions? Are we all set? Then if there’s no further questions, I’ll move to open the public hearing. Is there anyone that would like to speak in favor of this application? Anyone opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HAYES-I guess, if there’s no further questions, then I’ll move to survey the Board. We’ll start off with Roy. MR. URRICO-I think I had the same question as Chuck did. Why not put this in a compliant location, but I’m satisfied with the answer you gave, and I’m satisfied with the reasons you’re offering. Also, looking at the Staff comments about the increase of the permeable area which will be improved. So based on the criteria that we’re supposed to examine, the benefit to the applicant, feasible alternatives, relief substantial relative to the Ordinance, the effects on the neighborhood or community, and whether this difficulty is self-created, the only question I would have had would have been on the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance, but I’m satisfied that this is a good enough location. I’ll be in favor of it. MR. GAGNE-Thank you. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Allan? 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/27/02) MR. BRYANT-I agree with Mr. Urrico. It’s a pre-existing foundation, and it seems like a logical thing to just replace the old shed, and I would be in favor of the application. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. I many times attempt to place myself in the position of the applicant, such as yourself, and I think your application and your explanation makes sense. I think, on balance, and that’s a term that we use here, to me, it does make sense to utilize the current foundation that is there, and I really don’t see any detriment to the community, and of course with the two provisos that you demolish the existing chicken coop, 11’ by 23’, and you use the current foundation, I would support your application. MR. HAYES-Norm? MR. HIMES-Yes. Thank you. I feel that the, a number of things going for you. You’re so far from the road, you know, you can hardly see it from the road, removing one building is nice, and I’m still thinking, well, here’s our chance to correct a situation that isn’t right, but I think I’ll go along with your application, mainly because of the zone, Highway Commercial Intensive. I think anybody who might be moving in next to you there, as far back as that shed is going to be anyway, is not too likely to be impacted or that much concerned about something that’s reasonably new and kept up and your property back there does look quite nice. So that’s the main reason for my giving in. Otherwise, in any other zone I think I would have asked you to rebuild somewhere else, but under the circumstances, I think I’ll be in favor of the application. Thank you. MR. HAYES-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I can basically echo what’s been said. Given the zone that it’s in, I think the location is not going to be likely that it’ll affect the neighbor. It makes sense to put the shed on the existing foundation rather than create a new foundation, and I could see that sequence happening. If you build it in a compliant location, there would be no good reason for you to remove the old foundation. So then we’d have two foundations there instead of just the one. So given it’s location, and everything else, I don’t think it’s going to be a detriment to the neighborhood. It clearly is going to be a benefit to the applicant. So I’d be in favor. MR. HAYES-Thank you. I agree with the rest of the Board, and I think you’ve provided us with reasons why there’s a benefit to you to construct that on the existing foundation, and I can’t, myself, see any negative impact on the neighborhood, as a result of the construction, so, on balance, I would be in favor of the application. Having said that, would someone like to make a motion? MR. ABBATE-All right. I’ll take it, Mr. Chairman. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 90-2002 DONALD GAGNE, JR., Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant: 387 Dix Avenue. The applicant proposes the construction of an 11 by 17 shed. The applicant seeks 13 feet 4 inches of relief from the 20 foot minimum side setback requirements of the HC-Int. zone Section 179-4- 030. The benefit to the applicant. Mr. Gagne would be permitted to rebuild the previously existing shed on the existing foundation. Feasible alternatives. Feasible alternatives might include constructing the shed in a compliant location. However, in my opinion, Mr. Gagne has made a reasonable argument that placing the new shed on the current foundation makes a lot of sense. Is this relief substantial relief to the Ordinance? 13 feet 4 inches of relief from the 20 foot minimum requirement may be interpreted as moderate relative to the Ordinance (66.6%). The effects on the neighborhood or community. Minimal effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. However, as has been noted by several members of the Board, this is zoned HC. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be attributed to the applicant’s desire to utilize an existing foundation on which to reconstruct a previously existing shed. I’d also like to make two provisions here, if it’s approved. I would like to state that the applicant would use the existing foundation, and the second provision is that he demolish the 11 by 23 chicken coop, and based on that, Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve Area Variance No. 90-2002. Duly adopted this 27 day of November, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Hayes NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stone MR. HAYES-You’re all set. I guess you just need to see somebody for a building permit. MR. GAGNE-I’ve already got all that. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/27/02) MR. HAYES-Okay. Great. AREA VARIANCE NO. 94-2002 TYPE II DAVE WATERS/LARRY CLUTE PROPERTY OWNER: SAME ZONE: SFR-1A LOCATION: CORNER OF POTTER AND AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES REMOVAL OF EXISTING MOBILE HOME AND CONSTRUCTION OF AN 864 SQ. FT. SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING CODE. CROSS REFERENCE: BP 02-861, BP 02-860 TAX MAP NO. 301.7-2-20 LOT SIZE: 0.40 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-030 LARRY CLUTE, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 94-2002, Dave Waters/Larry Clute, Meeting Date: November 27, 2002 “Project Description: Corner of Potter and Aviation Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to demolish an existing mobile home and construct an 864 sq. ft. single-family dwelling with a 20’ x 20’ detached garage. Relief Required: Applicant requests 15 feet of relief from the 30-foot minimum front setback requirement for the garage and 5 feet of relief from the 20-foot minimum rear setback requirement for the dwelling, of the Schedule of Area and Bulk Requirements for the SFR-1A Zone, § 179-4-030. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct the desired structures in the preferred locations. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives seem to be limited due to the narrow pre-existing nonconforming parcel. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 15 feet of relief from the 30-foot minimum front setback requirement may be interpreted as moderate (50%), and 5 feet of relief from the 20-foot minimum rear setback requirement may be interpreted as minimal to moderate (25%) relative to the Ordinance. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community? Moderate positive effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be attributed to the narrow pre-existing nonconforming parcel. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2002-860: pending, demolition of mobile home. BP 2002-861: pending, construction of an 864 sq. ft. single-family dwelling and a 400 sq. ft. detached garage. Staff comments: Moderate positive effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. Should this application be approved, the replacement of the existing mobile home with the new single-family dwelling will be a vast aesthetic improvement, and will have more compliant setbacks. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. MC NULTY-No Warren County. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Please introduce yourself for the record. MR. CLUTE-Hi. I’m Larry Clute. I live in the Town of Queensbury, Dawn Road. MR. HAYES-Is there anything you’d like to add to the application, Mr. Clute? MR. CLUTE-No, it’s fairly straightforward. I’d like to pull the existing trailer that’s in place out of there, and reconstruct a small ranch in its place. As the application stated, it’s still essentially nonconforming. The lot is obviously very restrictive, but yet still the new building would be in more conformance than the existing trailer is, but other than that, I think the application is fairly straightforward. MR. HAYES-Are there any questions for the applicant at this time? MR. URRICO-In considering alternatives, was straightening out the house, or not having it pointed toward the corner of the road, was that considered? MR. CLUTE-Which house, the new house? MR. URRICO-The new house. MR. CLUTE-The new house, I’m going to try and run it, I guess it’s personal opinion. When I’m looking at the existing building, there’s a few things that catch me, and one of them is the angle of that house. You always try and stay with, you try and conform with the road. So essentially that’s what I’m trying to do with that ranch. I think, it’s not necessarily the building itself, but the new building will enhance the property, but also the orientation of it, I think, will enhance the property, too. It will, it’ll look better straight on Potter Road than at an angle, plus, the lot is so tight anyway, more of an angle actually creates more of a problem as far as the setbacks are concerned. The only issue is like the garage, I did pull the garage, you can see a proposed garage. I did pull that forward and I could bring that back, but the reason I pulled that forward and angled it is, again, with the dimensions of the lot and the restrictions, if you put yourself in that home, it really limits the amount of use that they can get out of that property. Privacy, there’s really no back yard. So by pulling the garage forward and angling it, I can gain them some privacy to the rear of that garage, on such a busy intersection, and actually I think it’ll lend to the design, too, by angling the garage and making a U- 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/27/02) shaped driveway it’ll set in there. I think it’ll look kind of quaint, to be honest with you, but again, for whatever opinions are worth. MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions for Mr. Clute? If there are none, I’ll open the public hearing. Is there anyone that would like to speak in favor of this application? Anyone opposed to the application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HAYES-I’ll survey the Board. I guess it’s time to start with Al. MR. BRYANT-Well, sometimes the benefits far outweigh the Code, and in this case the trailer has been an eyesore. The lot is pre-existing, nonconforming, and there’s really not a heck of a lot that you can do with that lot. With that in mind, I would be in favor of the proposal. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Every time Mr. Clute comes before this Board, I end up with accolades because he seems to always be vastly aesthetically improving the community, and I do believe in this case it still holds true. I did check out the lot, and the most kind thing I could say at the present time is that the sooner you construct this new house the better off the community would probably be, and based upon that, I would support your application, Mr. Clute. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Norm? MR. HIMES-Yes. Thank you. I agree. I think it’s a good idea for the disposition of this lot. It’s barely under a third of an acre. It’s a Single Family One Acre zone, and so building a house which is just over the minimum requirements of the Town Code, so you’re getting it about as small as you can, one car garage, altogether, I think that it’s a pretty good idea to go in that location. So I would support the application. Thank you. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I’ll agree, I think, basically, with what’s been said. Given the odd shape of this lot and it’s size, really strikes me is the only alternative is to say you can’t build anything there. It’s got to be vacant land, and that isn’t really fair. Given that, I think the proposal is reasonable. It’s a reasonable size building for this lot. I don’t see any other choice, really. So I’d be in favor. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I agree. I think you’ve tailored a nice home for a difficult lot to put a home on, and I think this is a good plan. I’d be in favor of it. MR. HAYES-Thank you. I guess, in this particular case, I’d have to disagree with Staff notes, in that moderate and positive effects, you didn’t write them right, your disclaimer. I’d have to say that I agree with the rest of the Board that the positive effects are overwhelming. Anybody who lives in central Queensbury, the neighborhoods that surround that, have found that to be a troubled piece of property over the years, and a remedy for that would be a benefit to the neighborhood for sure. I think that I agree with the rest of the Board on that. It’s a pre-existing lot. What you’ve proposed is as small a house as really can be done legally or close to that effect, that’s moderate in itself, and I think that, based on that, it’s a nonconforming lot. Something’s going to happen there, and we have a choice to decide that, and I think this is a good solution for that. So I’m certainly in favor. Having said that, is there a motion out there? Norm? MR. HIMES-Yes, I’ll take it. Thank you. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 94-2002 DAVE WATERS/LARRY CLUTE, Introduced by Norman Himes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: Corner of Potter and Aviation Road. The applicant proposes to demolish an existing mobile home and construct an 864 square foot single family dwelling with a 20 by 20 foot detached garage. The relief required, the applicant requests 15 feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum front setback requirement for the garage and five feet of relief from the twenty foot minimum rear setback requirement for the dwelling, of the Schedule of Area and Bulk Requirements for the SFR-1A zone, 179-4-030. The benefit to the applicant, he would be permitted to construct a residence in the position and location on the very small lot that he desires. Feasible alternatives are very limited, if any at all, that would be feasible because of the shape of the lot and how small that it is. Is the relief substantial to the Ordinance? Well, 15 feet of relief from the 30 foot 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/27/02) minimum front setback requirement may be interpreted as moderate, and 5 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum rear setback requirement may be interpreted minimal relative to the Ordinance. The effects on the neighborhood or community. Well, the effects certainly on the neighborhood are going to be positive because it’ll be a new dwelling in place of what is there now, which is unattended and not very attractive, and I think it’s going to be a benefit to all concerned, and in connection with that, I, again, move that we approve this variance as submitted. Duly adopted this 27 day of November, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stone MR. HAYES-Thank you. MR. CLUTE-Thank you. USE VARIANCE NO. 96-2002 TYPE: UNLISTED W.W. MAILLE EXCAVATING PROPERTY OWNER: HELEN SLEIGHT ESTATE AGENT: ROBERTS TOWING & RECOVERY APPLICANT PROPOSES NEW EXPANSION OF TOWING, RECOVERY AND REPAIR BUSINESS. CROSS REFERENCE: UV 3-90, SP 12-90, SP 18-96, SP 37-2000, NOT. OF APPEAL 5-02, VAR. 524 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 11/13/02 TAX MAP NO. 301.8-1-31 LOT SIZE: 1.71 ACRES SECTION: ART. 4 MR. HAYES-We have a letter. MR. MC NULTY-Do you want me to read the letter in? MR. HAYES-Sure. MR. MC NULTY-This is a letter from Virginia M. Sleight, Attorney, Subject: Use Variance Application No. 96-2002, it’s addressed to Craig Brown, and it says, “This will confirm my telephone conversation with you today that on behalf of the Estate of Helen A. Sleight, that the above application which is scheduled to be heard this evening be tabled for a period of 60 days to allow the Estate to provide additional information. I make this request on behalf of the Estate, in light of the information contained in your memo.” MR. HAYES-I guess we just need a motion to table this, but before we make that motion, we’d like to indicate that if there’s anyone here that’s here to make a testimony as part of that case, that Craig Brown will gladly take their name and number and contact them. Okay. At this time, then, I guess, based on the Town and the Board’s request for the proper information to consider a Use Variance, the applicant has requested that we table their application until that information can be provided, for a period not to exceed 60 days. MOTION TO TABLE USE VARIANCE NO. 96-2002 W.W. MAILLE EXCAVATING, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: Based on the Town and the Board’s request for the proper information to consider a Use Variance, the applicant has requested that we table their application until that information can be provided, for not more than 60 days. Duly adopted this 27 day of November, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stone AREA VARIANCE NO. 91-2002 PAUL & JOAN LORENZ PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AGENT: JONATHAN LAPPER ZONE: HC-INT. LOCATION: 78 QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES EXPANSION ON THE EXISTING STRUCTURE BY ADDING ADDITIONAL BAYS, OFFICES AND STORAGE SPACE AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING CODE. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 80-90, UV 83-90, SP 92-90, BP 91-940, SP 24-85, BP 86-05, SUP 103, VAR 1022, VAR. 1069, VAR. 1077 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 11/13/02 TAX MAP NO. 302.6-1-61 LOT SIZE: 0.565 ACRES SECTION 179-4-030 JON LAPPER & JIM MILLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/27/02) STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 91-2002, Paul & Joan Lorenz, Meeting Date: November 27, 2002 “Project Location: 78 Quaker Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 1,921 sq. ft. addition to the commercial building. Relief Required: Applicant seeks 18.5 feet of relief from the 50-foot minimum front setback requirement and 23.2 feet of relief from the 25-foot minimum rear setback requirement of the HC-Int Zone, § 179-4-030. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct the desired addition in the preferred location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives seem to be limited due to the triangular shaped pre-existing nonconforming parcel. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 18.5 feet of relief from the 50-foot minimum front setback requirement may be interpreted as moderate and 23.2 feet of relief from the 25-foot minimum rear setback requirement may be interpreted as substantial relative to the Ordinance (37% and 92.8% respectively). 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be attributed to the placement of the structure on the triangular-shaped pre-existing nonconforming parcel. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 91-490: 07/24/91, addition to building. SP 92-90: 12/27/90, commercial addition of storage area/waiting room. UV 83-90: 11/14/90, 2100 sq. ft. auto repair shop. AV 80-90: 11/14/90, setback relief for commercial addition. Var. 1077: 05/21/86, front setback relief for commercial building. Var. 1069: 04/16/86, setback relief for freestanding sign. Var. 1022: 09/18/85, side setback relief for construction of an automobile service/repair building. SP 24-85: 09/17/85, operation of an automobile carburetor and repair service. SUP 103: 04/21/82, operation of an automobile repair shop. Staff comments: Minimal impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The amount of rear setback relief may seem to be substantial relative to the Ordinance; however, should this application be approved, the new addition will be setback 1.8 feet from a 150-foot wide Niagara Mohawk power line right-of-way. SEQR Status: Type: Unlisted” MR. MC NULTY-And we do have a County Planning Board Review form. “Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form November 13, 2002 Project Name: Lorenz, Paul & Joan Owner: Paul & Joan Lorenz ID Number: QBY-02-AV-91 County Project#: Nov02-29 Current Zoning: HC-Int Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes expansion on the existing structure by adding additional bays, offices and storage space and seeks relief from the setback requirements of the Zoning Code. Site Location: 78 Quaker Road Tax Map Number(s): 302.6-1-61 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes to construct two additions to the existing Meineke Muffler facility. One addition will be on the south side a 588 sq. ft. addition. Where the south side addition is proposed to be 31.5 ft. from the Bank Street where 50’ is required. The north side addition will be 1,402 sq. ft. and is proposed to be 1.8’ from the rear setback where 25’ is required. The parcel is a triangle shape and adjacent to land owned by Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation where any type of expansion would require site alterations and probable variances. The plans submitted indicates that there would be nine new parking spaces, a relocated curb cut and new landscaping. The additions will be used for work bays, office area, and equipment. Staff recommends approval of the variance request because it will be consistent with the existing building and not changing the character of the site. County Planning Board Recommendation: Approve The Board recommends approval of the application.” Signed by Thomas E. Haley Warren County Planning Board 11/15/02. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Please state your name for the record. MR. LAPPER-Hi. For the record, Jon Lapper and Landscape Architect Jim Miller. Paul and Joan Lorenz are with us, sitting right behind us, and available for any questions as necessary. What we think distinguishes this parcel and this application and makes this unique, to justify the request, is the shape of the parcel and the location. That parcel was formed because the NiMo power lines crossed Quaker Road there at a diagonal and head up towards Aviation Mall. So we’ve got the intersection of Bank Street and Lafayette Street, and if the power lines were parallel to one of those, it would be a different parcel, but with the power lines cutting on a diagonal, it creates a triangular parcel. So the relief that we’re asking for, of course, is at the worst location, where it’s closest, and that’s why it seems substantial that it’s only one foot, but that’s only at the narrowest point. They don’t have other alternatives. It’s a nice location for their business because it has visibility from Quaker Road, at the same time it’s set back. The record, we’d like to show that they take extreme care and effort to beautify that piece. Not only do they do substantial flowers, they have that gazebo there, but they also mow and maintain that whole NiMo strip. By contrast, if you follow the NiMo power line across Bank Street, behind Staples, it’s very weedy and wild and certainly that wouldn’t be attractive if it was sitting at the corner of Quaker Road and Lafayette Street. So the fact that they maintain that entire swath there, the 150 foot wide NiMo power line, that’s something that they’ve been doing for years, shows how important aesthetics is to them, personally, and to their business. Some of the, it just bears mentioning that when Mr. McNulty was reading the list of prior approvals, that was previously a nonconforming use under the old Ordinance, and that’s why they needed so many approvals. Now in the new Highway Commercial Intensive zone, they merged the Highway Commercial zones into one, or fewer Highway Commercial zones. Now it’s a permitted use. So that’s why, it’s automobile service. So we’re just here for an Area Variance, and not for anything else. In terms of NiMo, I mentioned it in the application, but visually, when you look at the 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/27/02) parcel, you see the power lines. You see the grass continues from the Meineke Muffler parcel to the NiMo power line, and you don’t see the property line, and that’s why we think that the impact on the neighborhood here will be nonexistent, because when you look at, it looks like the whole thing is their parcel anyway. They maintain it as it was, but just visually, there’s plenty of grass around it. It’s not like you’re going to be butted up against another use, another business. No one is impacted. It’s just the power lines. With that said, I’d like to ask Jim to walk you through the plan. MR. MILLER-Good evening. On the site plan, this is Bank Street, and Lafayette Street, and Quaker Road. This large area you see in here is a 150 foot wide Niagara Mohawk right of way, and this is the triangular lot that’s owned by the Lorenz’s. Currently, the existing building is this white area. There’s a driveway that comes in off of Bank Street, and there’s another driveway right on the corner of Lafayette to access this, and the way the building sets up is this main entrance and waiting area and the storage is in this Section in the “L”, and then there’s four bays across this area, and if you’ve ever been there, everything is very tight and very compact, and what the proposal is, is to extend, on the south, off of the office and storage area, to provide more customer waiting area, to provide a better office space, and to expand some of their storage, and that was one area where the relief is being requested from the front setback on Bank Street. The other portion that you see here off the back, against the, where the other variance is being requested against the NiMo right of way, the purpose for this is to expand two new service bays to go from four to six, and because this is such a tight building, it’s very difficult for equipment and storage for the mechanics working in this area, so they’d like to expand off the back to provide more storage area, more room for welders and other types of equipment that they need. In addition to that, we’d like to expand the parking along the office area. This would be more of an employee parking area with access to the office, and then the parking would be expanded to the north to provide access to the new bays and some additional parking. All of the new parking would meet the current setbacks, with additional landscaping as required by Code under site plan, and with meetings with the Planning Staff, one of the concerns was this existing entrance, which was directly on the corner. So we’ve reviewed this, and have agreed that that second driveway would be maintained on Lafayette, but it would be shifted further away to provide more separation from Bank Street. In addition, the gazebo which is on the line there would be shifted back into the property. So even with the additions and the variances, we meet the site plan requirements for green space, and the new parking and the new pavement would also meet the new Codes. So, you know, all we need is the Area Variances for the additions. MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions for the applicant, or, Jon, do you have anything more to add to the application? MR. LAPPER-Not at this time, no. MR. HIMES-Thank you, if I could. MR. HAYES-Sure. MR. HIMES-Something that I think is significant. It’s a very small business. Very popular one. I’ve often noticed driving by there, four bays, limited to four bays. Everything else that I see in the community that’s in that line of business has got five, six, seven bays. I don’t know that Goodyear place right up the road, don’t they do the same kind of business, but it’s certainly related. I think they have eight bays, four in front and four in back. I think that to have, you know, some weight in the aspects of the need. MR. LAPPER-Yes, it’s a small building. Absolutely. What Jim was saying about the office space and the number of bays is very important to them. That’s why we’re here. MR. HIMES-I thought so. MR. LAPPER-They have a successful business. A good reputation. PAUL LORENZ MR. LORENZ-My name is Paul Lorenz. One of the main problems we have right now is we only have nine by nine doors, and we can’t get a lot of vehicles inside the building. So we end up doing them out in the parking lot when the weather is nice. So we’re trying to eliminate that by putting like 10 by 10 doors in, to try and get a little bit more size. Otherwise we’re trying to fold mirrors in and take them off the trucks and things like that just to get them in the shop. So these two extra bays would make a big dramatic difference for us. MR. HIMES-Well, you would agree that the additional bays, from the standpoint of why you’re doing, just trying to get a little more out as to the reasons why you’re doing what you’re doing, is that you’re small in comparison. MR. LORENZ-Absolutely. MR. HIMES-You’re surrounded by competitors. 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/27/02) MR. LORENZ-Right. My competitors all have much, much bigger shops. Even if this shop was expanded the way it is, their stores are still much bigger than mine. MR. HIMES-Yes. Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Let me try. The preamble by the attorney and the architect and Mr. Lorenz, I think, answered my questions. I was going to address Paragraph Two, what effect would this variance have on the character of the neighborhood, and the answer was somewhat subjective, but I think, I do believe that they have answered the questions, in terms of the neighborhood and what effect it would have on the neighborhood. I do believe they were attempting to indicate that it would have significant improvement of the neighborhood. Is that correct? Of course it’s very subjective. Give me one sentence how this would effect the neighborhood. MR. LAPPER-What Paul just said, that he’s doing outside work because he can’t fit trucks inside the bays, that’s one thing, that that shouldn’t be visible, but beyond that, what Jim was saying about eliminating the curb cut that’s near the intersection, which is a safety issue, that would be beneficial by doing this project, and additional landscaping along Lafayette Street as well, and we have submitted an architectural rendering of the addition, which you should have, and it’s a nicer design. So their improving the building as well, visually. MR. ABBATE-And this new construction, based upon your theory, would better serve the community in a number of instances. Is that what you’re attempting to tell me? MR. LAPPER-We’re cleaning up the site even more and eliminating some traffic issues with the corner, yes. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. HAYES-I have one question. Maybe you’ve already clarified it and I missed it, but your letter talks about a parking variance, and we just need to have that be clarified, one way or the other. MR. MILLER-That was my mistake. I was, as Paul said the bays are very small. I was under the impression it was three existing bays. So when we submitted, we thought we were asking for additional cars, and it turned out actually that we’re okay. We don’t need the variance for the parking. So it’s really six bays and not five. MR. HAYES-You’re being clear that you’re not asking for a parking variance? MR. LAPPER-Yes. A parking variance is not required, but we didn’t know that until we met with the Zoning Administrator, and then sent Jim back out to count the bays and that clarified it. MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you. Are there any other questions for the applicant? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Is there anyone that would like to speak in favor of this application? Anyone opposed? If not, any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HAYES-I’ll survey the Board. This time I guess we’re starting with Norm. MR. HIMES-Yes. Thank you. I, in short, feel very supportive of this application, for reasons that have already been expressed by the applicants. Additionally, I think that certainly already the property is so well maintained. I think it has one of the nicest Christmas displays you see anywhere. A lot of things that are, of course, good for business, but I also try to look at it as giving a little something back to the community, and I certainly can appreciate, from a business standpoint, someone who’s trying to make a go with all the outfits that are nearby offering same or similar services, and then your strong arm places like Wal-Mart, Sears, and the rest, I think that, when you look at someone who’s, this has got to be a tremendous financial risk and certainly a financial undertaking, putting money into this business and this community, in an effort to make it go even better than it is, and I think that, in my opinion, recognizing that risk and the magnitude of it, that I feel that this is something that I would feel very strongly in support of. Thank you. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Chuck? 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/27/02) MR. MC NULTY-Yes. I’ll agree. I think it’s an attractive property now, and I’d like to note it’s an improvement over what’s been there in previous years, because at one time this place had a, I forgot whether there was a truck or a car stuck out on the corner with a sign on it, and it didn’t look attractive. There’s been a big improvement. MR. LAPPER-That was the previous owner. MR. MC NULTY-And that encourages me that the current situation is different, and given the factor of the NiMo right of way or property behind it certainly makes a difference. Otherwise, I’d definitely be opposed to this kind of a large variance, but I think, given everything, it’s an appropriate expansion. It’s not extreme by any means. I think it’s going to look attractive when it’s finished, and I’d be in favor. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I can’t see this project being anything but beneficial to everybody concerned. Taking the test that we’re weighing this against, I think the benefit to the applicant is obvious. The feasible alternatives are limited because of the shape of the property, and I’ll go down to the effects on the neighborhood or community are minimal. In fact, this property has always been a positive impact on that neighborhood, and this is only going to I think, going to make it better, and whether the difficulty is self-created, I don’t think it is because of the pre-existing, nonconforming nature of this parcel. So the only question I really have is whether the relief is substantial to the Ordinance, and the rear setback is certainly mitigated by the easement by Niagara Mohawk. That does not bother me at all, and the 18.5 feet of relief from Bank Street might bother me, but it doesn’t, because Bank Street is, I consider it more of a service road than an actual road, and I do note that you already have 4.6 feet of relief prior to this, on Bank Street, and I really don’t think this is going to have a great impact on that. So I think this is a good plan. I would be in favor of it. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Allan? MR. BRYANT-I agree with what the other Board members have said, but I’ve got to say that I did chuckle when I read the application that, Item Number Two, how do you effect the character of the neighborhood, and that’s by expanding the building to serve the community better, boy, that was really grasping at straws, but. MR. LAPPER-Okay. That was done by my young, very enthusiastic, associate Stephanie. MR. BRYANT-It had to be, but anyway, I’m in favor of the application. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Norm said it pretty well. Here we have an individual who is willing to make an investment in the community, and I do believe, although it’s subjective, it probably, if approved, would better serve the community, and I certainly don’t see any adverse impact on the neighborhood or the community, and on balance, I believe the bottom line basically, if at all possible, reasonable, we should support businesses. In this case, I would certainly support the application. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Well, this is a balancing test, as you know, the Area Variance requirements are examined on a balancing basis. When I first looked at this application, I think, as the rest of the Board members, I certainly was a little bit alarmed with 1.8 feet of relief. It’s a small amount of relief. It puts the building, essentially, right on the property line. Additionally, I was concerned with the amount of relief that’s been granted in the past. I think that at some point we have to limit the amount of times that we allow or grant relief from the Code on any one given parcel, because eventually that can become a difficult situation, but when I balance that with what is the detriment to granting the relief, or what is the detriment to the neighborhood, as far as granting relief to the applicant, I don’t see much, and I think that’s what the rest of the Board has pointed out. The fact that there’s 150 foot NiMo right of way that is the most immediately impacted property in this particular case, or area in this particular case, from a visual perspective, I think that the relief, while numerically significant, I think from a practical result or aesthetic viewpoint, that there won’t be any impact on the neighborhood in this particular case that could be considered truly negative. Feasible alternatives are certainly limited. It’s as triangular parcel. The applicant has demonstrated that he has increased or new business needs to want to improve or perfect his store and his site, and that certainly is understandable in this particular case, and again, the effects on the neighborhood or community, I think the Staff notes are correct in attributing very minimal effects to the neighborhood as a result of this proposal as it is. Speaking for myself, alone, this would probably be the last piece of dimensional relief that I would be interested in granting on this parcel. I think this is a reasonable proposal, but another one I would probably feel wouldn’t be. MR. LAPPER-We understand there’s no more room to expand. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/27/02) MR. HAYES-All right. Great. So I guess I’m in favor of the application, then, in a nutshell. MR. MC NULTY-Before you go to a vote, we’ve got an Unlisted Action. MR. HAYES-Sure. Okay. So we’ve got to come up with a negative dec, then, basically. MR. MC NULTY-Right. MR. HAYES-Before we go to a motion on the application, we’ve got to do a SEQRA. MR. LAPPER-I wonder if it was a Type II because of the parking variance. Craig, if it’s individual lot line and setback variances, wouldn’t that be Unlisted? MR. BROWN-I think so. MR. LAPPER-I might be able to save you. MR. HAYES-Either way. MR. BROWN-It’s a Type II. MR. HAYES-Type II? Okay. MR. MC NULTY-We’re all set, then. MR. HAYES-All right. Based on what I’ve heard, I guess I’m looking for a motion to approve. Would someone like to take it up? MR. URRICO-I’ll take it. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 91-2002 PAUL & JOAN LORENZ, Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant: 78 Quaker Road. The applicant proposes construction of a 1,921 square foot addition to the commercial building. The applicant seeks 18.5 feet of relief from the 50 foot minimum front setback requirement and 23.2 feet of relief from the 25 foot minimum rear setback of the HC-Int. zone, Section 179-4-030. The benefit to the applicant would be that they would be able to construct the desired addition in the preferred location. Feasible alternatives are limited due to the triangular shaped pre-existing, nonconforming parcel. The relief is 18.5 feet of relief from the 50 foot minimum front setback requirement. It can be interpreted as moderate, but the panel has looked it over and thinks it’s a reasonable setback from Bank Street, and the 23 feet of relief from the 25 foot minimum rear setback requirement may be interpreted as substantial relative to the Ordinance, but that is mitigated by the easement granted from the Niagara Mohawk parcel that sits directly behind this particular property. The effects on the neighborhood or community are minimal, and this difficulty is mainly attributed to the placement of the structure on the triangular shaped, pre-existing, nonconforming parcel. Therefore it should be considered not self-created. Duly adopted this 27 day of November, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Hayes NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stone MR. HAYES-The motion is approved. MR. LAPPER-Thank you very much. MR. HAYES-Thank you. MR. LORENZ-Thank you very much. I appreciate it. MR. URRICO-You’re welcome. AREA VARIANCE NO. 92-2002 TYPE: UNLISTED MICHAEL BRANDT/HENRI LANGEVIN PROPERTY OWNER: WEST MT. LIQUIDATING PARTNERSHIP AGENT: JONATHAN LAPPER ZONE: RC-3A LOCATION: WEST MOUNTAIN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CREATE TWO NONCONFORMING LOTS AND PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT AN ICE-SKATING TRAINING RINK ON THE NORTHEAST LOT. THE 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/27/02) APPLICANT SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE MINIMUM PARKING SPACE REQUIREMENTS AND FRONTAGE ON PUBLIC STREET REQUIREMENTS AS THE PROPOSED ACCESS TO THE DEVELOPED LOT WILL NOT BE FROM THE PROPOSED FRONTAGE. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN CO. PLANNING: 11/13/02 TAX MAP NO. 308.17- 1-39, 308.13-1-1, 308.17-1-38 LOT SIZE: 8.19 AC., 10.68 AC., AND 2.61AC. SECTION 179-4-030; 179-4-040[c]; 179-4-090[a]; 179-19-020[c] JON LAPPER & JIM MILLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 92-2002, Michael Brandt/Henri Langevin, Meeting Date: November 27, 2002 “Project Location: West Mountain Road Description of Proposed Project: The applicant proposes to create a 1.53-acre nonconforming lot and proposes to construct an 8,120 sq. ft. indoor ice skating training rink. The proposed lot will be created from sections of two parcels comprised of 10.9 and 8.21 acres. Relief Required: The applicant requests 1.47 acres of relief from the 3-acre minimum lot size requirement and 17.3 feet of relief from the 50-foot minimum front setback requirement of the RC-3A Zone, §179-4-030. Additionally, the applicant seeks relief from the parking requirements of the Off-street Parking Schedule (proposes 30 spaces when 41 spaces are required), per §179-4-040(C) and relief from the Frontage on Public Streets requirements, as the proposed access to the lot will not be from the proposed frontage, per §179-4-090(B). Also, the applicant will require additional relief for the creation of a lot without frontage on a public road for the remainder of the 8.21-acre parcel, as a result of the creation of the 1.53-acre lot. The additional relief will not be needed if the remainder of the 10.9-acre parcel and the 8.21-acre parcel (minus the 1.53-acre lot) are consolidated into one lot. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: The applicant would be permitted to create a nonconforming lot and to construct the desired structure in the preferred location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include purchasing additional land to create a conforming lot, and constructing the structure in a compliant location. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 1.47 acres of relief from the 3-acre minimum requirement may be interpreted as moderate relative to the ordinance (49%). 17.3 feet of relief from the 50-foot minimum front setback requirement may be interpreted as moderate relative to the ordinance (34.6%). Relief from the requirements of Frontage on Public Streets, as the physical access to and from the lot to be built upon will not be provided from the lot’s frontage on a town road, may be interpreted as substantial relative to the ordinance. Relief for 11 parking spaces less than the 41 required may be interpreted as minimal to moderate relative to the ordinance (26.8%). 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal to moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): None. Staff comments: Minimal to moderate effects may be anticipated as a result of this action. However, the applicant could acquire additional lands to create a lot without any relief from the requirements. In doing so, the applicant could locate the proposed structure in a compliant location, and if the land directly across from Pitcher Road was part of the proposed new lot, relief would not be needed from the requirements of Frontage on Public Streets for access to the lot. Additionally, the remainder of the 8.21-acre parcel and the 10.9-acre parcel would not have to be consolidated, as the 8.21-acre parcel (minus the section needed to create the 1.53-acre lot) would have the minimum required 40 feet of frontage on West Mountain Road (the 10.9-acre parcel currently has 347 feet of frontage on Northwest Road). SEQR Status: Type: Unlisted” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form November 13, 2002 Project Name: Brandt, Michael/Langevin, Henri Owner: West Mt. Liquidating Partnership ID Number: QBY-02-AV-92 County Project#: Nov02-27 Current Zoning: RC-3A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes to create two non-conforming lots and proposes to construct an ice-skating training rink on the northeast lot. The applicant seeks relief for lot width and size for the lot to remain vacant and lot size for the to be developed. The applicant seeks relief from the minimum parking space requirements and frontage on Public Street requirements as the proposed access to the developed lot will not be from the proposed frontage. Site Location: West Mountain Road Tax Map Number(s): 308.13-1-1 308.17-1-38 308.17-1-39 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes to construct 8k120 sq. ft. building for an indoor ice rink with associated parking. The building is proposed to be 32.7 ft. from West Mt. Road where 50 ft. is required. The applicant is also requesting a variance from the number of parking spaces required. The applicant proposes 30 where 40 are required. The access to the parcel is over other lands owned by West Mtn, but the driveway does line up with Pitcher Road. Staff recommends discussion due to the potential use of the facility for other than a training facility. The concern is with the amount of activities that occur at a rink, including hockey games, figure skating competitions, and public skating. With the proposed building being so close to West Mtn Road this could cause overflow parking to occur on the road prior to other designated overflow areas. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact The applicant provided requested information concerning the use of the facility, and the parking concerns. The Board recommends No County Impact.” Signed Thomas E. Haley, Warren County Planning Board 11/15/02. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Please introduce yourself for the record. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/27/02) MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper, Jim Miller, and the applicant, Henri Langevin. Henri is a commercial bank loan officer by trade, with a passion for ice skating and ice hockey, and that’s why he has come up with this, and he’ll go into some detail about that, why he thinks there’s a need for this type of facility in Queensbury. To jump to the punch line, we’re really only asking for two of the variances in the list, after consulting with Planning Staff, but we’ll go through that as we explain the project. To begin with, when Henri, who is a resident of the Town, decided that he wanted to build this facility, and this is a training facility. So this isn’t like where teams would come with their parents and fans to watch games. It’s a quarter of the size of what would be necessary for an ice rink, an ice hockey rink to play games. It’s just a training facility, and he’ll get into that. He came to see Craig Brown, the Zoning Administrator, look at the zoning map, and say, ask where in the Town such a facility could be located where he wouldn’t need a Use Variance, where it would be a permitted use, and learned, essentially, that there was the West Mountain Ski area zone, and The Great Escape zone. So he was pretty limited in terms of what land he could look to acquire where he could have this type of use in the Recreation Commercial zone. West Mountain was one of them. At that point, he approached Mike Brandt to see what land might be for sale, and the reason why we’re here, which is really just for the size variance on the lot, and then the fact that we want to have a shared driveway with parcel on the other side, which is good planning, the reason why we’re here is because the owners of West Mountain Ski area said we will sell you the parcel, but not three acres, because they have potential future needs for that, for a drainage way. So they just didn’t want to part with that much property. Our best argument why that’s not significant is that we’re not asking for variances for green space, for front setback, although here it is mentioned. If we had asked for front setback variance, then we’d be saying, okay, we want a smaller lot, but, hey, we may be impacting somebody across the street because we’re also moving it closer to the road, but Jim will show you on the map that’s not the case. We’ve provided for 51 feet of setback in the front. So we’re not asking for that variance. So this building, in terms of the use and the layout on the site, completely complies, as if we had a three acre site. We could have a three acre site and still put the building in the exact same location. We’re just saying that the part in the back will be forever deed restricted as a condition, I hope, for approval, that it cannot be built on. So the whole lot is being treated as the three acre, but West Mountain, for their own reason, didn’t want to sell it, and that’s why we’re here. I guess it might be simpler, Jim, for you to go through the plan and show the variances that we need and then we can go through the list of why we don’t need variances. MR. MILLER-Good evening again. Actually, this plan that I’ve shown here is we submitted a site plan approval trying to keep the process moving. So this is a little bit of a refinement of the plan that you’ve got is basically the same. As Jon said, it’s a one story. I think it’s a 21 foot high building. It’s going to be a rink and the ice sheet is 50 by 100 feet. The building is located on the property and meets all the setbacks. The front setback there, we’re showing the building at 51 feet. Fifty foot is required. So we’re not quite sure where that variance came from, and one of the reasons to locate it, the site kind of drops off in the back. So we wanted to keep it as close as we could to minimize some of the fill and some of the footing complications on the building, but we do meet that setback. The building has been sited, one of the requirements by Henri and also the company, the manufacturers of the ice sheet, is that they want the entrance to be on the north side so that we can maintain some trees and plant the south and the west sides for heat gain reasons. So the building’s been sited on the parcel to the south side, along West Mountain Road, and with the parking to the north, and as we developed the plan for this, one of the concerns that Mike Brandt had was if we were to develop an access way off of West Mountain Road in this area, he doesn’t have plans for anything now, but owning as much land as he does, he would like the ability to possibly have some kind of an access road out this way, whether it be service or maintenance or whatever, and he requested, made the request to Henri that instead of us providing an entry onto our own property at this point, what he would like to do is maybe at some point in the future have access to his land, so what we asked for is a variance to allow us to use a driveway off of our property on the West Mountain property, which would align directly with the Pitcher Road intersection, and then we would basically turn into our property, and that was the second variance, the size of the lot and that access way. MR. HAYES-That’s where the perpetual easement would be granted for? MR. MILLER-I’m sorry? MR. LAPPER-No, what I was referring to was that the land in the back where the other one and a half acres, and it’s actually less. MR. MILLER-That’s this area. MR. LAPPER-Would be perpetually in a deed covenant, that it couldn’t be developed with any (lost words) we’re taking up three acres of space and saying that three acres can never be used. MR. HAYES-Okay. So it’s not going to be a three acre lot, but you’re saying you’re going to create the effect of that? MR. MILLER-That’s right. It would be retained by Mike Brandt, but it would be encumbered as part of this approval, and we looked at the type of activities that Henri will have there, like power skating, stick handling, he may have someone do figure skating lessons, but it’s mostly skating drills and training and that type of 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/27/02) thing. As Jon said, there’s no games. There’s no bleacher area. As you enter the building, as you will see in the plan, there’s just a small lobby. So some people will come and park. There’s a small area where some parents could stay. It’s typically children. A lot of parents will come and drop their children off and go shop or something, which is part of the reason we’ve developed the site plan in the way we have, is they could enter, we’ve got a driveway to come around and drop off at the door, and they could exit or they could come in and park in the parking lot. So the required parking is one space per two hundred square feet, and that shows up as a variance, and we’re really not asking for a variance on that. There was a little misunderstanding with the Staff, I believe. Henri feels he doesn’t need 40 cars, and so we debated how many he wanted, and we agreed he would go for 30, but what we’re planning to do, as part of our site plan application, the Planning Board has the ability to waive paved spaces. We have to show we can provide them, but rather than pave parking spaces we don’t need, they can waive that, and then if we do need them, we have the space to do it, and that’s how we would like to deal with the parking. Even though we’re only showing 30 spaces and 41 are required, we’re really not looking for a variance for that, but we’re going to seek, as part of the site plan, a waiver for that additional pavement, from the Planning Board. So what we’ve done is we’ve, we would provide that additional parking to the rear of this loop that we just show as an access drop off loop. One of the other things, the site raises up from the road and then it drops down to the back, and what we’ve done here, to balance the grades, and also worked out to our advantage, we’re going to maintain, along the front of the building, or front of the parking lot and the building, essentially a berm that’ll be four to five foot tall. There’s some existing trees along the property line there, and what we’re proposing to do is try to maintain that row of trees that occur along the property line there, and in addition, we would provide some additional planting along the parking lot to provide a buffer from West Mountain Road, so that the parking area is not as visible from the residences across the street. There’s Town water. There’s no shower facility or anything. Children typically come dressed and ready to go. There’s room to put their skates on and put their pads on. They go out on the ice. So there’s just a bathroom there. There’s no shower rooms or anything. There’s one shower that would just be part of the office for the trainer. So there’s minimal water usage, a small septic system would be provided, to handle that. All the storm drainage, the soils are very good sands. All the drainage will be collected and infiltrated into the soil. Any overflow would be discharged out to the back area where it’s lower, but all the storm drainage would be handled on the site, and there’d be one sign near the entrance which would be set at the appropriate setbacks. There would be some lighting, and what we’ve proposed is 20 foot high cutoff type lights that would minimize any spill outside of the parking area, and that’s. One thing, as we developed the site plan, the variance says we’re looking for 1.47 acres of relief. What we tried to do is, in order to meet the green space, even with the expanded parking, that if those additional spaces were paved, we want to still meet the green space, which is pretty high here. It’s 65%. So the lot would actually be 1.63 acres instead of 1.53 acres. So the relief we’re asking for is 1.37, not 1.47. Thanks. MR. HAYES-Mr. Lapper, as far as the relief for the lack of frontage on a public street, which you’re still asking for that. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. HAYES-And I guess, how are you handling that in a way that we can be comfortable with, from a legal perspective, with that driveway then? MR. LAPPER-That we would be granted an easement for that access. MR. HAYES-So there’s going to be two easements, then, on this property? MR. LAPPER-Yes. I didn’t fully answer your question. The access, as you see, we have the frontage. So we could design this to put a driveway in there. It would just be better, the Town Code suggests, as a design guideline, that it’s better to minimize curb cuts. So if we have a shared access to this and the remaining lands of West Mountain, of course West Mountain owns, thousands, literally, of acres, but not that much along West Mountain Road, but there is other land along West Mountain Road that’s going to be retained by West Mountain Ski. So this would be a shared driveway for any future use that they might have, just to minimize the curb cut. So we would have an easement in at that location. So I view that particular variance as pretty minimal, because we’re just saying it’s a good design idea. It was very similar to the Home Depot application where we had frontage on Montray, but nobody wanted us to use it. So here we could just put a driveway in on this parcel, but it’s just better planning to have a shared driveway for the future for West Mountain. So, that’s that. MR. HAYES-All right. Then as far as the additional relief for the creation of a lot without frontage for the 8.21 acre parcel. MR. MILLER-I talked to Matt Steves today about that, and Matt has been the surveyor for Mike Brandt, and he informed me, if you can see on the plan that Craig’s got up there, that the concern is there’s that lot, that odd shaped lot with that barn on it, that that would be cut off from West Mountain, but in fact they’ve already consolidated those back parcels. MR. HAYES-Legally consolidated? 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/27/02) MR. MILLER-Yes. MR. HAYES-All right. MR. MILLER-At one point there were different holding companies and things, and Matt Steves explained to me that Mike Brandt went through and had that resurveyed and they were all consolidated. So that’s just legally just one lot. Unfortunately that other lot still shows up on the tax map. MR. HAYES-If that’s the case then you’re formally withdrawing your request for that relief, then? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. MILLER-That’s true. MR. HAYES-Okay, because we want to be clear that we’re not granting that. MR. LAPPER-I guess we should just go through the list. MR. HAYES-Is that all right, Craig? I mean, it seems like. MR. LAPPER-Staff notes. MR. HAYES-See, you’ve changed the relief as far as the minimum lot size, to 1.37 acres. MR. LAPPER-Right. Yes. MR. HAYES-Okay. MR. LAPPER-And we don’t need any front setback variance. MR. HAYES-You’re not asking for the off street parking, even though that seems like a variance from the Planning Board, but I guess that’s permissible. MR. LAPPER-Yes, that’s not, the Planning Board, although mostly everything has to come before you, that’s one thing where they have discretion, because you’re showing that you could accommodate, you’re just not building it. So that’s a waiver. So that doesn’t require a variance. MR. HAYES-I guess we can accept that, because if they don’t give you that waiver, then you’ve got to come back. Right? MR. LAPPER-Yes, right, or build them. MR. MILLER-Yes. They typically give us those waivers, only because they don’t want have a lot of unnecessary pavement. MR. HAYES-The Wal-Mart provision. So then we go down to, you still need relief from the frontage on public streets, for that lot, the 179-4-040 C. MR. LAPPER-For our lot. MR. HAYES-Right. What you don’t need is the relief from Part B. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. HAYES-So that’s out. MR. LAPPER-So it’s the size of the lot, and that access coming from the lot next door. MR. HAYES-Does everyone understand what we’ve delineated as far as the relief? MR. HIMES-We’re down to just two? MR. HAYES-Yes. We’re down to minimum lot size and we’re down to frontage on public streets for the created parcel. MR. LAPPER-Okay. Before we turn it back to you guys. MR. HIMES-And the parking. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/27/02) MR. HAYES-They’re going to request a waiver from the Planning Board which is in their rubric. If they don’t get that, then they would either have to construct them or come back and ask for a variance. MR. HIMES-I have a question in connection with that, when we get to it. MR. HAYES-Sure. MR. HIMES-Should I do it now? MR. HAYES-Absolutely. MR. HIMES-It may be as much not asking for a calculation in your head, but if those parking spaces were to be installed, I’m looking at the, if I can find it in here, the permeability. It’s like a tenth of a percent, based upon probably the 30 or 31 parking areas. If you were to go to the 41, yes, permeability required, 65, existing, of course, is 100, and proposed is 65.1. I guess I’m saying, Craig, if this is a fair question to you, if those extra 10 or so parking spots were required, would that create a problem with the permeability? MR. BROWN-I don’t think so. What we received, and what you guys received as part of your variance application, was a plan quite a bit more preliminary than what they have submitted for site plan before the Planning Board. The plan that’s been submitted to the Planning Board for site plan review shows those reserve parking spaces, and they’ve been accounted for in the permeable calculation, it comes right out at, I believe right flat 65%, right? MR. MILLER-That’s right. MR. HIMES-So it’s just a tenth of a percent? MR. BROWN-No, it’s zero. It’s right on 65%, with those 10 spaces. MR. HIMES-Okay. So the 10 spaces are only a tenth of a percent of the? MR. MILLER-Yes. That’s why we increased the lot size to the 1.63, so that if we needed that, we didn’t need another variance. MR. HIMES-Okay. MR. LAPPER-So we needed a tenth of an acre, not a tenth of a percent. So that’s why we added the tenth of an acre. Otherwise, what you’re saying is it wouldn’t make that you get 10 spaces on a tenth of a percent. MR. HIMES-Yes. Thank you. MR. LAPPER-Before we turn it back over, I’d just like to introduce Henri. I think just in terms of this variance, it would be good for us to explain to you, in terms of the character of the use, exactly why he’s building this and what he’s proposing. Because this is somewhat unique and not something that has been done before. HENRI LANGEVIN MR. LANGEVIN-I’ve been coaching locally for about six years and actually have been involved with hockey for over 40 years, and one thing that I’ve noticed recently is that the kids don’t have enough training time, and they’re always playing games, and the local rink, I don’t believe, is really convertible to a year round facility. So what I’m proposing in this investment is a year round facility where we can just train kids how to skate and stick handle and things like that. There won’t be any seating. So there’s no games to speak of. There’s a very small viewing area where the parents can look in, but it’s purely for training purposes, and we’re going to do this to try to compete more aggressively with places like Clifton Park that have similar facilities and actually larger facilities that are year round facilities. It’s very similar to if I was doing tae kwon do or ballet or something like that. It’s purely training. We’re not doing anything else. It’s not like it’s bowling where you have bowling alleys or things like that, and we do expect, and we would like to have eight to eleven kids per training session. That would mean that would be profitable, and if we had eight to eleven kids, typically what happens is, from what I’ve seen, I’ve investigated several similar projects. For whatever reason, 85% of the parents that bring the child there are mothers. The mothers bring the child to the site, drops the child off at the site, and then goes shopping at Hanneford or something like that, wherever, or the Mall, Aviation Mall, and then comes back an hour later to pick up the child, and then leaves the site. So our parking is really minimal compared to a bowling alley where the people are there the whole time. These people are there for a few minutes to drop off their child, put their skates on, and then they come back an hour later. There’s 15 or 20 minutes between sessions. So there’s very little turnover time, because the child typically comes fully dressed and ready to go, and like I said, with hockey nowadays, as with soccer and 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/27/02) baseball, it’s a year round. You need to be training year round. Otherwise you’re not competitive with the other communities. MR. BRYANT-These are local kids that just go to Queensbury School? MR. LANGEVIN-Yes, especially with Queensbury High School having a new program now. I mean, there’s a lot more kids that need to be trained at a young age. I mean, most kids start at about 3 years old, but you do find kids coming in at around 9 years old. Well, they’ve lost six years to that other child. MR. BRYANT-So they basically pay for this training? This is a commercial enterprise? MR. LANGEVIN-Absolutely. Yes. I mean, it’s an investment in the community, and it’s because I love hockey. I’m not going to get rich on it, but they will pay, you know, to have me or another instructor train the child, you know, to get them up to speed with the other kids. MR. LAPPER-It’s like taking your daughter to ballet lessons. MR. LANGEVIN-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Is this restricted to children? MR. LANGEVIN-No, you can have high school kids there. The only thing with high school kids, as you can imagine, my sheet of ice is only a quarter, you know, a regular sheet of ice is anywhere from 75 to 80 by 200. This one’s only 90 feet long, and it’s 50 feet wide. So if you have high school kids, you’re going to have fewer of them. MR. ABBATE-You mention that the majority of folks dropping kids off there would be mothers. Are there any facilities for children who drop off their senior citizens and go shopping? Do you have any facilities for that? MR. LANGEVIN-That could be anybody, and we will have learn to skate programs there for kids from 3 years old up to senior citizens. I’ve actually taught 80 year old people how to skate. MR. ABBATE-I’m relieved. You finally got that in there. I feel better. MR. LANGEVIN-No, the majority of them will be the little kids. A lot of the little kids. MR. ABBATE-I understand. So it’s really not restricted to children. MR. LANGEVIN-No, and as was mentioned earlier, there’s figure skating, but, you know, you could go to the Civic Center and see 15 figure skaters out there. If you go to my rink you’re going to see maybe two, maybe three, because it’s a quarter of the size of the other. So it’s not a, and it can’t do speed skating. I’ve investigated that. The rink’s not big enough for speed skating. MR. BRYANT-Are you going to have an open skate night where kids come in and pay a couple of bucks and skate? MR. LANGEVIN-It’s pretty small. If we did that, we’d have to limit how many kids would come, but in the summertime, there would be a need for that, because there isn’t any place to go skating around here in the summertime. Occasionally the Civic Center will open up, but, you know, what I probably would do is some of the kids that I train, you know, let them come and skate for an hour, or something, but that’s not the purpose of it, to have an open skate night. The purpose is to train the kids to skate and skate well, so they can be more competitive. MR. URRICO-Did the property location dictate the size of the rink, or is this something you had in mind from the beginning? MR. LANGEVIN-No. This concept exists in Halfmoon. They’re going up all over the place. It’s not, I didn’t make it up. I wish I had, but I didn’t, and there’s two ways to go. There’s one way with the real ice, which actually mimics what they’re doing in Watertown. There’s another way to go which is called synthetic ice, which they come in and lay it down like they would a floor, but the synthetic ice has a drag to it, and the kids aren’t going to like it as much, and senior citizens wouldn’t like it, because, you know, it really, it’s probably better for you in the long run, but it’s a lot of work in the meantime. It’s not as much fun, and that’s what we’re going to try to do is make it fun for the kids, so they want to come back, they’re going to go ask mom and dad, can I go back there for some more training. That’s what we’re going to try to do. MR. URRICO-What are going to be the operating hours, what do you anticipate? 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/27/02) MR. LANGEVIN-Well, typically it’s after school. So it usually goes from like four, you know, four to nine, maybe, something like that. MR. URRICO-And each session? MR. LANGEVIN-No, each session is about an hour. MR. URRICO-About an hour. MR. LANGEVIN-I mean, if you take this few kids, like if I get five to seven, and I skate them for an hour, they’re read to drop. So they’re not going to stay, and that’s probably about the time, you know, as with the meeting, a practice session is about an hour. That’s about how much attention span I can expect. MR. HIMES-A question, to clarify a matter that may not be of any great impact. The application shows Michael Brandt and yourself, I think, and I see somewhere, although I can’t put my finger on it right now, of course. MR. LAPPER-Mike just signed the application because he’s the landowner, but Henri is, it’s Henri’s project. MR. LANGEVIN-I don’t currently own the land. MR. HIMES-Okay. MR. HAYES-It’s a contract situation? MR. LAPPER-Yes, a contract situation. So he’ll purchase it after receiving approvals. MR. HAYES-Outright. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. HIMES-He’s going to purchase the land if everything goes along? MR. LANGEVIN-It’s contingent upon approvals. MR. HIMES-Okay. So the Liquidating Partnership, which I cannot put my finger on in the file here somewhere, is? MR. LAPPER-The current owner of the whole West Mountain Ski area. MR. HIMES-Liquidating Partnership. MR. LAPPER-That’s just what they, that’s the legal entity that owns West Mountain Ski area. MR. HIMES-Okay. So you’re going to be an entirely separate entity? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. HIMES-Except for the little shared road. MR. LAPPER-Driveway, right. MR. HIMES-Okay. Thank you. MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions for the applicant at this time? MR. LAPPER-I just have one final comment in terms of the standards, in terms of the compatibility with the neighborhood. This, of course, is a permitted use in this zone, and it’s compatible with West Mountain in terms of, in the winter, when you have all of the traffic of everyone coming to ski, this is a very minor use, where he’s talking about eight to ten kids at a time, you know, so worst case, eight kids being dropped off, eight kids, ten kids being picked up, and in the summer, when West Mountain is completely quiet, this is a minor traffic generator as well, and because we’re complying with the setbacks, this is something that we could do without a variance. It’s just a matter of, that the three acres is not available for him to purchase. MR. HAYES-Any other comments? If not, I’ll open it up to the public hearing portion of the presentation. Anyone that would like to speak in favor of the application? Please come forward. Anyone that would like to oppose the application? Please come forward. I would like to remind anyone that does speak that there’s a five minute limitation on your presentation. Please come forward. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/27/02) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED BOB JONES MR. JONES-My name is Bob Jones. I live at 200 West Mountain. May I approach your screen? MR. HAYES-You can. MR. JONES-We are presently the homeowners, longstanding, 30 plus years, in this whole region here. This is us, Bob Jones, right here. The biggest parcel right opposite, and in the application, it states that it’ll have little impact on the community. We take strong exception to that standard. One, the location is a residential area for years, as well as a home for a civil war home down at the Hulls down the road, and this is going to increase, reduce the quality of our life for living and the property values for these hardworking residents of which I happen to be retired. It’s too close to the homes. Some homes are 125 feet away from this facility. The traffic proposal calls for the creation of a new commercial entrance on an existing double lined curve on West Mountain, and my question is, are we adding a third deathtrap to the mountain road, having picked up bodies, dead. MR. ABBATE-Say that for me one more time, please. MR. JONES-Are we adding a third deathtrap intersection, and I’ve picked up bodies at the Luzerne Road and others, and very cognizant of the traffic there. Plans call for the 30 car parking lot. It will undoubtedly increase the volume, the flow, and as identified the timing. Already, we have to dash and scoot across to get to the mailbox, and that’s a literally truth, and sometimes waiting even five minutes to get across it. Families attempting to ride their bikes, it’s almost prohibitive, presently. Walking dogs, anything of that nature is prohibitive, because of the oftentimes reckless driving. The impact on Pitcher Road which is two lane, it will probably become a new shortcut, and as you know, there’s a very narrow bridge on the Clendon Brook area, and this is going to have four cars in, four cars out, if mom drops them off, leaves, then comes back. Lighting and noise. There’s going to be equipment operating, undoubtedly interfering with the family activities and barbecues to whatever it happens to be in the summer. Building the parking lot will have the lights and some people will be blessed with more lights in their front yard in the summertime especially, when they want to go out. Water. This entire area, and I’ve spoken with your Building Department person, is a swale coming down through here. I was out there a few hours ago, and it’s flowing at anywhere from four to thirty feet wide, at a range of eight to twelve inches. Occasionally during the summer, it becomes a dry stream bed. At times, it’s come within one foot of West Mountain Road flooding. So we’re very concerned about the runoff and existing traffic, or water patterns, from both the ski area and the adjoining Hull property in the APA area. The septic leach ate, although they claim to be small, will probably be flowing into this existing water pattern and flow into the neighborhoods of existing residents, because the culvert goes under West Mountain Road right here, into Tina Lane, and right down through, and the kids just historically play there in the springtime in the water, and that flows into the back properties of Bedford Close, and as I said, it’s almost flooded West Mountain Road several times. The next item of concern is how will this leach ate effect our local wells, of which many of us still have operating wells as well as Town water. In fact, some of the wells are within 100 feet of this proposed leach ate field. Where will the parking lot runoff go for wintertime salt into that same water bed or water flow area, affecting our water table. The visual impact. This is a proposed warehouse, and it’s certainly in conflict with the existing architecture and environment out there, and it’s going to detract from everybody’s land values and everything else. What’s the future plan? We don’t know. We heard mention of a buffer area to be there, and there are trees two feet around, and I think the people that have been there have seen the two foot pines. I’m not so sure they’ll survive the chainsaw. Number Three, what are the future plans for the access into the back area on this driveway. This is not one parcel. What are the future plans? We know Mr. Brandt has many different plans going, and that’s okay, but we’d like to be a party to them because as we finally have a comment that we are in favor of ice skating. We are in favor of a project, but not at this location. We have no big problem if this is located back in here. There’s existing concrete structures and things, back in here where the terrain is higher, 10, 12 feet higher vertically, open, access could be off the existing West Mountain, or Northwest Village Road in, an existing commercial corridor in, and the traffic flow would be restricted. It would be back here away from everybody, lights, sound, noise, enjoyable for everybody, including all of us, and yes, many of us even do ski, and I’m glad he’s including senior citizens in his program. Maybe I’ll skate when he’s up there. The potential dangerous situation at Pitcher Road. Pitcher Road is already a crazy intersection, if you are familiar with it. Cars run that stop sign there all the time and take that curve in a very crazy manner, and if we expand that, it’s going to increase the probability of accidents there, and we’ve had enough of them out there, and the traffic along Pitcher Road will be intensified, interfering with the Northwest Village area, and if we could convince them to put it up here where it would be acceptable to everybody, take that strip of land along the road, 100 feet wide, and make it a buffer so that they could have future development in that region, and it would be a positive attribute for the residents who have been there for 30 plus years, taking care of their property and trying to maintain it. So, if they wanted to put it back off the road, out of the way, you’d find us a lot more agreeable. Eighteen of us have signed a petition stating our opposition to it. Several are out of Town, and by the way, thank you for giving up your night before a holiday. Several are in the hospital. So we have some people here, and I think that’s my comment at this point, and thank you. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/27/02) MR. HAYES-Is there anyone else that would like to speak in opposition to the application? MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, if I could just address the public real quick. I think the comments made by the first speaker are valid points. I think they’re going to be better addressed when this application, if it’s approved, gets before the Planning Board. Those are more planning concerns. If you have concerns over the size of this lot to be created, that’s the only purview that this Board has right now. That’s the only thing they have the authority to approve, the size of the lot. It’s supposed to be three acres. They want to be 1.6. So if you’re concerns are based on the size of the lot, try and focus on that. Those are all valid planning concerns, and I think they should be expressed before the Planning Board as well, but just try and focus on the size, but feel free to come up and speak, just to focus a little bit. NATHANIAL WILLIAMS MR. WILLIAMS-My name is Nathanial Williams. I live at 212 West Mountain Road, which is directly across the street, right on the corner of Pitcher and West Mountain. I completely agree with what Bob has said. I’m going to be the one that’s going to have to live with the parking lot lights and stuff coming across the road into my living room. I’ve lived in that location for 25 years, and I honestly, truly believe that the buffer zone is on the wrong end of the property. It shouldn’t be on the back of the property. It should be on the front. So, that’s all I’ve got to say. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Anyone else that would like to speak in opposition to the application? MARK WELLINGTON MR. WELLINGTON-Good evening. My name is Mark Wellington. I live at 12 Tina Lane, and is this residential zoning? MR. BROWN-The zoning is Recreation Commercial. MR. WELLINGTON-Recreation Commercial. Okay. I just want to voice my opinion that I oppose this variance. Okay. I don’t think it’ll be very useful for all the reasons that were mentioned, even though I understand that it’s not about, we’ll be at the next one, at the Planning Board, but I just want to oppose this. Thank you. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak in opposition to the application? RENE STEHLE MR. STEHLE-My name is Rene Stehle. I live at 14 Tina Lane, and I also would like to oppose the variance on this. If you look at the plans for this building, I think it’s just a complete disgrace, with all the nice homes that we’ve got in our community, the families to look at something that looks like a warehouse being built across the street from our homes, and I don’t think that this, at the first step, should go anymore forward. Thank you very much. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak? KURT WISELL MR. WISELL-My name’s Kurt Wisell, and I live at 28 Pitcher Road. I think your project is a terrific one. I think the Town really can use the rink. I think it’s great for the youth of the community. My problems are with the traffic and the access to it, and then the planning considerations, but I think you’ve got a great project. I wholeheartedly support the project, but I must oppose the variance on the access and the traffic considerations. It doesn’t make really good use of existing infrastructure, which I think would be a lot better use of the area, and it’s small, and it’s wet, and that’s about all I’ve got to say that hasn’t already been said. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Anyone else who would like to speak in opposition to the application? DAN DE CHICK MR. DE CHICK-Hi. My name’s Dan DeChick. I live at 16 Tina Lane. I agree with everything that’s been said. Bob, Mark, all the neighbors. We’re looking at a terrible eyesore. We’re looking at a 21 foot high blue building, with no windows, no doors, one door. It’s just a disgrace to the area. What an eyesore. I’m opposed. That’s all I’ve got to say. MR. HAYES-Thank you very much. Is there anyone else that would like to speak in opposition to the application? JOHN LORD 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/27/02) MR. LORD-My name is John Lord. I live on 164 West Mountain Road, and I’m against the variance, because if they put any kind of a driveway across Pitcher Road, it’s going to cause a very bad traffic problem, and we have enough problems on that road, and people are going to be gawking at this area, and we don’t need people looking at the skating rink and driving down West Mountain Road. I’m just against the variance. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Is there anyone else that is here to speak in opposition to the application? Last chance. If not, any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-Yes. We have one piece of correspondence. This is from Gabe Armando, he’s 24 Stonebridge Road, and he says, “As a resident of Stonbridge Road in the proximity of the proposed re- zoning, thus creating a non-conforming parcel, I strongly oppose this request. The Metal Building proposed for the site is not only an eyesore but is not in keeping with the character of the area or adjoining properties. There does not appear to be sufficient room, between the building and the road, for a buffer zone. The creation of this non-conforming parcel, in my opinion, will lead to future undesirable development in the adjacent areas. I have no problem with progress and the rights of others to develop their property, but not as an infringement or detriment to surrounding property owners. I am sorry that I cannot be present to voice my opinion, but urge the board to deny this Variance. Thank you, Gabe Armando” MR. HAYES-Are we clear for the record that this is not a re-zoning. This not a Use Variance. It’s an Area Variance. So, is there anything, Mr. Lapper, you’d like to add? MR. LAPPER-Just to sum up, just a response to the neighbors. I mean, any time anybody proposes anything that’s not residential in an area where there are houses, of course you’re going to have residents concerned, and that’s something that we anticipated. As I said when I started out, there are only a couple of areas in Town where this type of use is a permitted use. So that decision was made by the Town Board, in light of the fact that this is the West Mountain Ski area. I’m sure that, you know, if somebody wanted to put in a ski area now that would be controversial, too, but just like the resource is there for the mountain, the resource is there for this use, because this is the zone that the Town Board has determined that is appropriate. The site plan issues, as the Zoning Administrator said, are all valid issues that the Planning Board will get into, and the project may look different after Planning Board review, even including the location of the driveway, but I know in general, a four way intersection is something that is preferred, rather than to have a driveway slightly, or to have roads slightly staggered, just in terms of traffic design, but that’s something that the Town would look at, the County would look at, in terms of that driveway location. In the future, West Mountain could use that driveway for some expansion in the back. Obviously, they’re not willing to sell the rest, any more land to Henri, because they are reserving it. One of the neighbors mentioned the drainage way, and specifically, that drainage way is on the other side of the building, but that is why West Mountain wants to keep that land, because they want to be able to control that drainage way for runoff from the mountain. We understand that we’ll have to look at light spillage, berming, those are all legitimate planning issues. Noise. Henri mentioned to me that because the building is so well insulated, for temperature, obviously, that it’s also going to act as an insulation, as a buffer for noise. Because of the size and the nature of the facility, it’s not going to be like, you know, dropping two teams of kids off. So it’s just not a big impact, and in terms of the ultimate design of the building, the look of it, that’s something that’ll be discussed with the Planning Board as well. Henri lives, you know, not far from West Mountain Road on that side of Town. He doesn’t want to make enemies, and he sees this as similar to like the Ballet Center on Bay Road, in terms of impact, which is a real quiet use where I bring my kids, because I don’t have sons. Is there anything that you’d like to add at this point? Any questions? MR. ABBATE-Let me, if I were living, those folks who objected to the project this evening, if I were living in that immediate area, I would probably be one of the first one’s up here objecting to this particular project. However, as a member of the Zoning Board of Appeals, I have to separate that kind of emotion, because the Zoning Board of Appeals is vested with the authority to issue certain kinds of permits, subject to what they call reasonable conditions, and the findings of the Board are not going to be upheld where they are not supported by objective and reliable evidence, but based upon generalized objections and speculative community fears. So while I sympathize with the folks who are objecting to this thing, I just have to bring it to your attention that we are held to quite a high standard on this, and in most instances, speculative community fears can play no role in our decision making policy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. MC NULTY-Mr. Chairman, I’d like to add to that, though, and point out that, as has been mentioned, most of your concerns are legitimate, and they are appropriate for the Planning Board. The Planning Board can act, and has in the past, on concerns like this. So you certainly should show up when this appears before the Planning Board and make sure that all your concerns are expressed to them. MR. HAYES-So we can kind of stay in order here. I guess we’ve had the public record. You’ve answered anything that you wanted to answer. So why don’t we get to the survey, because that’s what we’re kind of doing anyway here. MR. BRYANT-I want to ask a question. MR. HAYES-Certainly. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/27/02) MR. BRYANT-The distance of the building to West Mountain Road is going to be how far? MR. LAPPER-Fifty-one feet. MR. BRYANT-Fifty-one feet. MR. LAPPER-That does provide room for additional buffering as well, and plantings in there. MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions for the applicant? MR. URRICO-Again, I asked the question, you answered it before. I just can’t remember what you answered. How many kids will be at each session, or how many people can you hold at each session? MR. LANGEVIN-Depending on the age of the child, I’d like to see eight to eleven kids. That’s why, you know, the other one that I researched was in Halfmoon. They have, it’s a commercial area, and they don’t even have, they have about 25 spaces, and not only do they have the rink, but on the other half of the building they have a glass or a flooring company. So there’s more than enough, so that’s why an eight to eleven I’d make some money on it. MR. URRICO-You mentioned the majority of the kids being dropped off. The current location on Fire Road or the Civic Center, there are a lot of things to do around there. Where this is located, I just don’t see, in an hour session, somebody taking off and coming back. MR. LANGEVIN-If it’s the mothers, they would go to Hanneford or they could go to Aviation Mall. MR. URRICO-That’s a half hour, fifteen minutes away each direction, that’s a half hour. MR. LANGEVIN-Maybe I’m driving too fast, but it’s not that far. I know I’ve gone, Hanneford from there, I think, is probably five minutes at the most. Well, whatever, we also expect that there’s going to be quite a few kids from Bedford Close and Hudson Pointe. Hudson Pointe is loaded with kids that play hockey. So, you know, we’re hoping that they, you know, because initially I was a little bit disappointed when I called Jon and said I’m kind of limited as to where I can put it because it’s called Commercial Recreation, and Jon is the one that said, hey, that’s probably a good idea. That’s a nice place for it. So that’s why we decided. I’m not going to say where they’re going. Obviously, I’m not. MR. URRICO-I’m just curious. MR. HAYES-Okay. Why don’t we survey the Board now, get a direction as far as a motion. Chuck, why don’t we start back with you, because you kind of got a lot of that accomplished already. MR. ABBATE-Okay. What are we doing? MR. HAYES-Where do you stand? MR. ABBATE-I see. Say what I’m going to say and get it over with. As a member of the Board, there are instances, and this happens to be one of the instances, in which we sometimes find ourselves in conflict, but recent legal cases have made it quite clear that members of this Board may not vote based on emotion or community speculative fears. We just can’t do that. We have to address, as the Zoning Administrator and I think the Chairman indicated, we have to address one specific area, and many of the concerns that were raised by, legitimate concerns, that were raised by those folks who object to this type of construction should legitimately and appropriately be expressed at a Planning Board meeting type of thing. So, my vote this evening will be a very narrow focused vote based upon the authority that we have, the scope of what we have on the Zoning Board of Appeals. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. HAYES-And that vote will be, just so I know. MR. ABBATE-Say that again? MR. HAYES-You said your vote will be, what would you like to do? MR. ABBATE-I am torn on this, and I want to be fair to all parties involved, and, Mr. Chairman, if you’d give me permission, I’d like to wait a few more moments please. I’d like to hear what the rest of the folks have to say. MR. HAYES-Okay. That’s fine. Norm? MR. HIMES-Yes, thank you. Certainly the objectives of the investment being made, and I think most people, even the ones that oppose you, have said that it’s a good idea, the children, and the training facility 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/27/02) which is lacking in this area, all is very good. I don’t think there’s great animosity from nearly anyone here in that connection, and not from me, either, but on the other hand, the aspect of the, it’s a three acre, supposed to be three acres, and what you’re trying to do fits in very nicely to the reduced size. In other words, you don’t need three acres, and you’ve just got the relief on public frontage, which, of course, the shared access would take care of to some extent, but you’re still down here to this aspect of missing about an acre and a half, and whether or not, I can’t say, of course, whether West Mountain Ski would sell you additional land or whether it’s maybe the funds that you have available to commit that wind up in your getting an acre and a half rather than the three. On the aspect, for example, of the shared access, why not, for example, well, they sell you a little more land on that end and you give them the shared access. I wonder if there might be something here that could, granted we’ve all said this is an acceptable use up there, and it is probably a good place for it. Traffic and all is handled by other means besides us, but I do have considerable concern about the fact that only 1.37 or 1.47 acres is available to you, or that relief is needed, and I would like to know more about the aspect of whether or not, what it is, the amount of money to be invested, or what’s stopping this additional, of the thousands of acres involved up there. MR. LANGEVIN-He wants to control this swale that they talked about, where the water comes off the mountain. He wants to control that. So this piece that he’s retaining control of, it’s not going to be developed. It’s as if, I mean, I could build this just like it is on the three acres, and it’ll look the same way as it’s being proposed now. Because that other piece is not going to be developed. All they’re going to do is, and I don’t think they even have to reroute it much, but this water runoff from the mountain, he just wants to move it out a little bit onto this piece. So whether he does it or I do it, I mean, I’d rather have him do it, it’s his water, off the mountain. So that’s why he wants to retain control of it, but it’s not going to be developed. To the naked eye it’s going to look the same. MR. HIMES-What control is he going to have? I mean, if this is deeded. MR. LAPPER-He’s going to own it. MR. HIMES-Forever of not being developed and what not. I just feel a little weak on the aspect of approving that, based upon my, I haven’t been sold very hard on the aspect of, well, it’s got to be, you know, about 50% of what the required acreage is for that area, and so, unless I hear considerably more. MR. LAPPER-Well, I guess, it’s an engineering issue. Because that’s a drainage way for West Mountain, he feels, Mike Brandt feels, that it’s more important for the use of that passive area that won’t have a building. It’s more important for West Mountain to own it, to control their drainage way. Rather than if he would agree to sell it to Henri and grant an easement back, he said he doesn’t want to sell it. So Henri asked to buy three acres, and was told we could buy this 1.6, because of that drainage way. MR. HIMES-This runs right along the road. Right? MR. LAPPER-The drainage way is behind where Henri proposes to build the building. So it’s on that one and a half acres that would be behind this parcel. MR. HIMES-But who owns the land to, let’s say the north, there, where your access, you know, across from Pitcher Road? MR. LAPPER-That’s being retained by West Mountain Road for future use in the Recreation Commercial zone associated with West Mountain Ski area. They don’t have any plans now, but that’s part of their land holdings. MR. HIMES-Yes, but that’s the strip I’m speaking about. If more could be obtained there, you’d have your land. You’d have your own access there. The lot would have it’s own access. We wouldn’t have to make any variance for that, and you could come pretty close, or much closer to meeting this three acres now. MR. LAPPER-Well, you see where that is on the map? That would be the only access that West Mountain has there on West Mountain Road, that West Mountain Ski area has. So they don’t want to sell all the frontage and own the land on the back. So that’s why they’re retaining that piece that’s in the, right there. MR. HIMES-Yes, well, I guess it’s a difficult decision, based upon the person you’re doing business with, and that is unfortunate, but I don’t know that I can agree that the Code should take the beating on it. So, I’ll listen to some others, but as of this moment, I would like to have some, a little more effort. You’ve done a good job in reducing the original variances down to two anyway. So I really feel badly about this, but I also feel, recognizing the neighborhood’s feelings, even though they show no hardship, as a result of what you’re doing at all, but that’s just their feelings. I’d have to have a better reason, in my opinion, for giving you the variance. MR. LANGEVIN-The building is going to be here whether I have 1.63 acres or 3 acres, and the balance of the acreage is to remain forever green, and that’s what’s going to remain. 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/27/02) MR. HIMES-I understand. MR. LANGEVIN-No trees are going to be removed. There’s nothing. It’s just a matter of rerouting the swale, in the event it comes on our property to the other piece. So this would happen, if we had three acres, it would happen without anything. MR. HIMES-Yes. I understand. Thank you. MR. HAYES-Okay. I think he understands that. We traditionally don’t allow you, during this segment, we don’t allow you to. MR. LAPPER-He asked for a response. MR. HIMES-As I’ve said, I tend to be coming down on the negative side of this, for the reasons I explained. Thank you. MR. HAYES-Okay. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-This is a difficult one, because the basic project as proposed is certainly laudable, and as we’ve said, we can’t consider a lot of the points that the public has brought up with this Board because it doesn’t fall in our purview. I might also add that I know that Mr. Lapper is pretty good at resolving some of these problems. So should this project go forward, I think the neighbors are going to find that they’ve got somebody that’s fairly cooperative in trying to solve problems that you see. However, looking at what I have to look at along with the other Board members, benefit to the applicant, obviously the applicant could do the kind of project that he would like to do, if this were approved. Feasible alternatives. I’ve got to look at it from the viewpoint that there are some feasible alternatives. It’s a difficult business situation right now, because the landowner is being reluctant on what he wants to release, but there’s a lot of land there. I think there’s some opportunity to do something with a conforming size lot. 1.47 or 1.37 acres of relief from the 3 acre minimum requirement strikes me as definitely being moderate. It’s a fair significant difference. Effects on the neighborhood and community, again, not considering the potential traffic effects, the visual effects or any of those things, which we can’t consider, but considering the effect of creating a substandard lot in this area, keeping in mind, as has been mentioned, the possibility of West Mountain possibly doing something else to the north at some point, it strikes me that that is going to have an effect on the neighborhood, and is this difficulty self-created? Yes, it definitely is. It’s a proposal. There’s nothing that’s forcing this to be developed here. Admittedly, there’s some limited areas where this kind of project could fit in with zoning, but there are, there’s the areas around West Mountain and there is the areas around Great Escape where a deal might be struck. So my conclusion is that there are alternatives. I think it’s a fairly substantial request, and I don’t feel that the Board should be helping resolve what strikes me as being a business related difficulty in this case. I’m going to be opposed. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I essentially agree with Chuck. I think the idea is good. I agree that the locations are limited, but to me this particular plan does not represent minimal relief. It seems to me that the West Mountain facility is manipulating, I don’t know if that’s too strong a word, the situation, and various aspects of this, and the buffer and the driveway, which is part of this review, particularly, are being impacted by this, and it does not seem fair to me that the West Mountain and Great Escape should monopolize the RC-3A zones, but we aren’t the ones that create the zones. I think, as Chuck said, there are feasible alternatives, and I do think this will have a major impact on the neighborhood and the community, and I don’t think that, in this case, that we should overlook the relief that is being asked. 1.47 acres, to me, represents a lot of relief. I know it’s moderate percentage wise, but it’s a three acre zone, and almost half of that would be overlooked, and I think, to me, that’s more than we should be granting. So I would be opposed. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Allan? MR. BRYANT-I want to comment on some of the things that the neighbors said, first, relative to the traffic and the dangers of West Mountain Road, which really have nothing to do with the application, really stems from the fact that the Town allows a 50 mile an hour speed zone in a residential area, a place where people run and walk their dogs, shouldn’t be permitted. So that has nothing to do with the application. I think Staff really touched on it when they made comments during the discussion there, when they talked about, use is not really part of this application, the fact that they can build a skating rink on that property and we can’t do anything about it, that’s the way it’s zoned. It’s zoned for Recreational Commercial use, and that’s what they plan on doing. So basically the other members of the Board have touched on this size issue of the lot, and I think, Counselor, if there was a problem with the back half of that piece of property, that one and a half acres with the drainage or whatever, I think that you should have brought some kind of engineering data here to show that this is a problem or a concern, and that Brandt is going to take care of it and he wants to take care of it and not saddle the new owner of the property with it. So I think you probably would have convinced a few more Board members had you had some kind of engineering data relative to that drainage. Okay. Personally, I think about, you know, the effect on the character of the neighborhood, and, yes, it does effect 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/27/02) the residential portions, but in reality, that is a commercial recreational area, and it’s not really any different than having West Mountain Ski area there. So if we’re going to vote tonight on the size of the lot, personally, I’m going to take your word for it, that Brandt wants to control the flow, but I think it doesn’t look too favorable, and you should have had engineering data. MR. LAPPER-That’s a valid point. MR. BRYANT-So I’m going to vote in favor of the application, if we vote on it tonight. MR. HAYES-So, Chuck, you’re still undecided, or would you like to? MR. ABBATE-No. I’ve pretty well made up my mind now, after listening to what these folks have to say on the Board. Allan raised an important issue here. I am going to vote against the application, and I want the record to show that my vote against the application is not based upon objections or any kind of speculative community fears, but I don’t believe the applicant has provided sufficient objective reliable evidence, and Allan touched upon that, in terms of an engineering project. I think, if the applicant had, Number One, touched based with each of the individuals, homeowners adjacent to this particular project, and sat down with those folks and said to them, look, here’s what our engineer has said, and it’s not going to have any effect on you, I think we probably wouldn’t have half the folks we have tonight here objecting to this type of thing. So my no vote is not based upon speculative community fears, but based upon the fact that I don’t believe the applicant did his homework. MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you. Well, it’s the night before Thanksgiving. So I’ll spare my speech and cut right to the chase. You don’t have the votes for an approval, but I believe that the issue is narrower or close enough, as the Board members have indicated, that if you would like to withdraw your application and resubmit a different application, that would be okay with this Board, versus a denial. MR. LAPPER-Would it be possible to ask for a tabling? MR. HAYES-That’s what I meant, a tabling. MR. LAPPER-For two reasons, to talk to the engineer and to talk to Mike Brandt, and to see if he would be more flexible, in terms of land. We’ve heard where you’re coming from. So we know now, and we can go back and talk to him. I don’t know if it’s going to change, you know, he wants to control the drainage way, but at the minimum, we could talk to an engineer, and I can’t say that’s going to sway you, but at least we could get some more details on the table. I think that was a very valid point. So at this point I’d ask to be tabled. The project’s not going to go away. We just want to see what we can do. MR. HAYES-I can talk to the Board about that, but it certainly seems reasonable, considering that that was the specific objection that was raised by some of the Board members, and clarifying that issue, to clarify their position. So, is everybody okay with that? MR. HIMES-Well, yes. I’d just like the applicants to know, again, at least what my understanding is that water runoff thing was pretty much, was more behind? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. HIMES-The area. MR. LAPPER-On the land that we won’t be building on. MR. HIMES-Yes, that in there. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. HIMES-That would be one area where additional land might come from. I was speaking about to the north. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. HIMES-Which they want to reserve for probably other kind of development. So that’s another alternative. MR. LAPPER-We will talk about that with the owners. Two good points. Thank you. MR. HIMES-Thank you. That’s it, Jaime, thank you. MR. HAYES-Okay. Based on input from the Board and from the applicant, I’m going to make a motion that we Table Area Variance No. 92-2002. 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/27/02) MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 92-2002 MICHAEL BRANDT/HENRI LANGEVIN, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: West Mountain Road. Based on input from the Board and from the applicant, for no more than 60 days. Duly adopted this 27 day of November, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stone MR. HAYES-Thank you. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. BOB JONES MR. JONES-Mr. Chairman, please, are we going to be advised of this next review? MR. HAYES-Were you given a notification from the Town for this one? MR. JONES-Yes. MR. HAYES-Then you will have to be, yes. MR. BROWN-Yes, typically we don’t re-advertise. We’re not required to re-advertise for a tabled application. What’s going to happen, logistically, is these guys will have until the 15 of December to get new information th in to be heard for January. So any time after the 15 of December, if you want to give us a call, or leave me a th number and we can get in contact with you if you’d like to know if they’ve submitted and what potential agenda they’re going to be on. MR. JONES-Our responsibility is to contact you, or should we have our attorney contact you? MR. BROWN-It’s up to you. MR. HAYES-Either/or I guess would be fine. MR. JONES-Would you like the list of our concerns? MR. HAYES-No. I think you should submit that at the next hearing. MR. MC NULTY-Or at the Planning Board, when it gets to the Planning Board. Because what you’ve presented tonight really is appropriate for the Planning Board. MR. JONES-Thank you very much for your time. MR. HAYES-Thanks for coming. OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 86-2002 TYPE II HOWARD AND JENNIFER NADLER PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE AGENT: JONATHAN C. LAPPER, ESQ. PROPERTY LOCATION: 15 ANTIGUA ROAD ZONE: WR-3A, CEA APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 728 SQ. FT. DETACHED GARAGE WITH A HEIGHT OF 20 FT. AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE HEIGHT REGULATIONS OF THE WR-3A ZONE. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 68-02; AV 63-01, AV 101-00, SP 77-00, BP 02-844, BP 02-729, BP 01-583, BP 01-581 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 10/9/02 TAX MAP NO. 239.17-1-5 LOT SIZE: 0.27 ACRES SECTION 179-4-030 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; H. & J. NADLER, PRESENT MR. ABBATE-Jaime, has this already been approved? MR. HAYES-No. We approved. MR. ABBATE-Significant changes. 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/27/02) MR. HAYES-Correct. It was denied originally, and we approved a rehearing. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. HAYES-Based on a significant change. MR. BRYANT-Yes, but wasn’t there an original, 68-2002? MR. HAYES-It was denied. MR. BRYANT-It was denied? MR. HAYES-It was denied. MR. MC NULTY-There was an original application that was denied. They modified it. MR. BRYANT-Okay. I understand now. MR. ABBATE-So we have significant changes now. All right. Okay. I’ve got it now. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 86-2002, Howard and Jennifer Nadler, Meeting Date: November 27, 2002 “Project Location: 15 Antigua Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 728 sq. ft. detached garage at 20 feet in height. Relief Required: Applicant requests 4 feet of relief from the 16-foot maximum height requirement for detached garages as per the Schedule of Area and Bulk Requirements for the WR-3A Zone, § 179-4-030. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct the desired structure at the proposed height in a compliant location in order to provide for much needed storage. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives seem to be limited relative to the need for storage problem. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 4 feet of relief from the 16-foot maximum height requirement may be considered minimal to moderate relative to the Ordinance (25%). 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal effects may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? Some of the difficulty may be attributed to the lack of suitable area to construct a storage shed large enough to accommodate the storage needs of the applicant. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): AV 68-2002: denied 08/28/02, 728 sq. ft. garage at 22.42 feet in height. AV 63-2001: 09/26/01; demolish existing structure and construct a 2662 sq. ft. single-family dwelling and a 784 sq. ft. detached garage. Relief for side setback, FAR, and relief for the expansion of a nonconforming structure. BP 2001-583: 08/01/01; demolition of residence. BP 2001-581: 07/30/01: single-family dwelling and two-car detached garage (never issued). AV 79-2000: (withdrawn 10/18/00); single-family dwelling addition. AV 101-2000: 01/17/01; 1,178 sq. ft. first-floor addition and 624 sq. ft. garage. SP 77-2000: 03/20/01; 1,178 sq. ft. first-floor addition and 624 sq. ft. garage. Staff comments: Minimal impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The applicant claims the proposed garage will provide for much needed storage. The proposed garage would not be out of character with the neighborhood, and the applicant has provided statements in favor of the proposal from the immediate neighbors. The proposed garage would be well screened from the lake by mature evergreen trees (and the dwelling), and the cedar shake siding will help the structure blend in with the natural surroundings. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. MC NULTY-And there is no County. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Mr. Lapper. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. For the record, Jon Lapper with Howard and Jennifer Nadler. You just heard the list of the prior variances, and as you will recall, Bob Wall was the prior owner. He came in seeking variances for a very large taller structure, and through compromise, over a number of meetings, he agreed, and was satisfied with the result of granting a variance for a smaller replacement structure. Howard and Jennifer bought the lot with those approved plans, and they were very happy with the house, which they will build, but what bothered them mostly about the garage when they went to get building plans done and talk to designers, just aesthetically, because it was a 16-foot high garage, it just was shed-like compared to their future home, which will be very nice. So the reason that they came to me to come and talk to you was primarily aesthetically. At the same time, it’s not a large house. They’re a growing family with a young child, and they were looking for some upstairs storage. So we came in last time seeking 22 and a half feet of relief, and I understand that the Board thought that that was too much, and because it’s only for storage, it wasn’t necessary to do that. I mean, aesthetically, it would look nicer if it were taller, in terms of the pitch of the roof matching the pitch of the house, but they are here in the spirit of compromise. They would be quite satisfied with the 20 feet, just so that they can have some upstairs storage above the garage. If you’ve been to the site, you’ve seen that they’ve already done the work that could be done in the fall to put the foundation in. 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/27/02) Another thing, the size of the building, the dimensions won’t change. It’s just the height. So they’ve done what they could do, in building season. So they’d like to immediately finish that structure so they can park their cars inside, and the primary thing that we’d like to show you differently than where we were last time was that the Board raised some valid issues about what were the impacts on the lake, and while we were talking about the location of the structure behind the house, now we have some photos that just show why the trees that are there, and the existing house, block the location of the garage, but more importantly, the new house will be taller, and that will certainly block the location of the garage. Some of the pictures are just of neighbors’ properties. So, Howard, it’s probably best for you to just quickly go through that. MR. NADLER-Okay. This is Howard speaking. I numbered the pages on the top left side so I could walk you through it. The first page you’re looking at is a picture of our existing home that we purchased. The garage would be, if you look at Page One, the garage would be right in the middle, actually the middle more towards, facing the house, to the left of, behind the house. If this is the house, the garage would be like over here. Okay. MR. HAYES-At eleven o’clock? MR. NADLER-Yes, exactly, and if you look at Page Two, what I did do, I just wanted to give you a perspective on what the neighbor’s house looked like. MR. LAPPER-And you can see there that there are trees blocking where the garage would be also. MR. NADLER-Right. MR. URRICO-The house to the right, is that, this one here. MR. NADLER-Which page are you on? MR. URRICO-Page Two. That’s the neighbor’s house? MR. NADLER-Page Two? Yes. That’s Joe and Eileen Nichols, and Dave Montana is to the left. MR. URRICO-And that house is considerably taller than your house. MR. NADLER-Much taller. That’s a three story house actually. Okay. If you go to Page Three, basically I gave you a zoom of what Page Two was, straight on. Page Four, I moved a little bit to the left a little bit. I was a little digital happy there. Page Five is now I am on the boathouse. Okay. Page Six, I’m still on the boathouse. Page Seven, I wanted to shoot up and show you where the trees are. Then Page Eight, now this is, you can see this is Nichols’ house. You can see part of our existing house, and then if you look further to the right, you can see, I don’t know the neighbor’s name, but you’ll see in the next picture, they have a mansion, and that’s their outhouse, their guesthouse, excuse me, their guesthouse. MR. HAYES-The same thing. MR. NADLER-Right, exactly. Now, if you go to Page Nine, this is our dream home one day. MR. ABBATE-That’s not an outhouse, is it? MR. NADLER-No, no. This is the one, we’re trying to get them to adopt us, but it didn’t work. So you can see, I just wanted to give you a snapshot of what the whole Antigua Road looks like, and then Page 10 I just pulled us back so you could get another snapshot, and Eleven is I zoomed in on the guesthouse, and 12 is back to our little house, and 13 is. MR. ABBATE-Is 13 within the confines and the limits of the United States? Who owns that large house? Is that a hotel? MR. NADLER-It’s a house. It’s two houses down from us. MR. ABBATE-There’s about 12,000 square feet? I’m serious. MR. NADLER-Yes. It’s massive. It’s one of five homes that he owns. MR. SALVADOR-That’s small. MR. ABBATE-Small compared to yours, John. MR. HIMES-Is that on Lake George or the French Riviera 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/27/02) MR. NADLER-And then Page 14 is, I kind of fell in love with the house. So I took another shot, and Page 15 is back to our little house, and I really went back from a different angle on the water. MR. LAPPER-The point, what we’re trying to show there is that the house now would block the location of the garage and the new house is going to be taller, which will block it, and we’ve got all those trees, and also the character of the neighborhood. The other valid point that the Board mentioned last time, we were talking about that there could be the potential for development of a house in the back, on the parcel behind this, and whether or not they could be blocked. So I went and got a copy of a survey from the Dave Montana file, which I will submit to you. He’s the landowner on the north to the next lot, on the side where the garage is, and we do have in the record his, a letter from him saying that he supports the variance and he also has a garage up there, but he owns the three acre parcel in the back, and what I wanted to show with this is that there are, because we’re in the three acre zone there, he can get one residence, but he has a choice of locations. So he can locate his house there, in many places, to maximize the view, if that’s his goal, but you were talking about a future construction, and a future view, and I just wanted to explore that. So this is the map, the triangular piece in the back, which is about three acres. The Nadlers residence on this map is now or formerly of McGrane, right in the center, but it just shows that there’s a lot of choices for where you could put a house if someone, I assume someday somebody will sell that and put a house. MR. HAYES-Okay. Is that it, Jon? MR. LAPPER-I guess, just in general, we understand that this Board is sensitive to the lake, and we respect that, but we tried to minimize this. They’re really not trying to do something you’re going to see from the lake, and I know that some of the members were concerned about, in terms of the character of that area, everybody asked for it, and that area is pretty developed. They’re not doing nearly as large a house as some of their neighbors, and that’s why they’re asking for this, and I just want the Board to know that they were happy to reduce it to try and get your approval. MR. MC NULTY-Mr. Chairman, before I indicated there wasn’t a County review, and I was wrong. Going back a month there was a County review. Their conclusion was No County Impact. Just for the record. MR. HAYES-Okay. That’s fine. You had a question, Chuck? MR. ABBATE-No, I just, well, more of a comment. I think the Chairman mentioned, this is the Thanksgiving seasons. However, I’m going to state some facts here. Mr. and Mrs. Nadler paid their dues. They have repeatedly, and publicly, shown their willingness to work in the spirit of cooperation with the Town of Queensbury, and they have done basically everything we have asked them to do, and they have graciously come back, time after time after time, and I would just like to congratulate you for doing that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. HAYES-Can I put you down for a yes, then? MR. ABBATE-Yes. That’s a yes. MR. HAYES-Saving time. MR. URRICO-I have one question. Getting back to the photo on number three, the house to your right is the Montana house. Is that what you said? MR. LAPPER-The house to the left. MR. URRICO-The left. The one to the right, is that a garage that I see in the middle of that? MR. LAPPER-To the right on Number Three. MR. NADLER-That’s Nichols’ house. MR. URRICO-Is that another garage behind the boathouse? MR. LAPPER-No. MR. URRICO-I was just curious. MR. NADLER-No, that’s part of the house. MR. HAYES-It kind of goes up the incline there. MR. NADLER-Right. 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/27/02) MR. HAYES-Are there any further questions for the applicant at this time? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here wishing to speak in favor of the application? Anyone in opposition? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HAYES-I’ll survey the Board. I guess, Chuck, you’ve already said your piece. We might as well stay with the logic and go with Norm. MR. HIMES-Yes. Thank you. You did a nice job with these pictures. It brought in some other factors to my mind. However, as I said the last time, you brought the compromise which I was looking for I think has been met, and certainly, additionally, some of the comments you made in one of the last meetings about the need for storage, well, building another facility, which you could do, I think up to 500 feet or something like that, I’d rather not see that. So from all aspects of the thing now I feel good about approving the application and I would be supportive of it. Thank you. MR. HAYES-Thanks. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Well, to cut to the chase, I think I’m going to be in favor this time. On the one hand, I don’t like the idea of continuing to approve height variances, but on the other hand, as Norm pointed out, one alternative might be for a property owner to put up another shed, and I’d prefer to see the storage on top of the garage, versus another shed, and I can also understand the argument of wanting to do something that looked a little more like the design of the house than just a short stubby garage. So I think this is a reasonable compromise, and I think, all totaled, it’s going to be a benefit to the neighborhood. So I’d be in favor. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I’d like to echo the comments of my previous Board members, and also compliment you in the spirit of cooperation, how this application is certainly more modest than the previous one, and I certainly think you satisfied the five criteria of the test, and so I would be in favor of it, and I’m also thankful that Chuck remembered what Town we were in this week. MR. ABBATE-That’s an inside joke. Last meeting I got caught saying that the Town of Colonie, because I’m from Colonie. So my Board members picked up on that. They won’t let me forget it. MR. HAYES-Okay. Allan? MR. BRYANT-Going through the minutes of the last meeting, basically I said that if you brought the garage down to 20 feet, that I would vote in favor of it, but I lied. No. I’m very happy with what you’ve done with this project, and I’d be in favor of it. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. HAYES-Well, I certainly agree with the rest of the Board members. In this particular case, the Board asked for a compromise, and we got one. It certainly was an effort on the Nadlers part that they have, in the eyes of the Board, touched all their bases on this application, and I guess it’s time to approve it. So, having said that, is there a motion? Norm? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 86-2002 HOWARD AND JENNIFER NADLER, Introduced by Norman Himes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant: 15 Antigua Road. The applicant proposes construction of a 728 square foot detached garage at 20 feet in height. Applicant requests four feet of relief from the 16 foot maximum height requirement for detached garages as per the Schedule of Area and Bulk Requirements for the WR-3A zone, 179-4-030. The benefit to the applicant. The applicant would be permitted to construct the desired structure at the proposed height in a compliant location in order to provide for much needed storage and with an architectural design that would be in keeping with the planned residence. Feasible alternatives seem to be limited. There’s really, given the shape of this lot, not much room to put any other kind of a structure for storage of the magnitude that they need. The relief substantial to the Ordinance, four feet of relief from the 16 foot maximum height requirement may be considered as minimal to moderate. Effects on the neighborhood or community. Well, the minimal effects as far as what normally we’re concerned about is the view from the lake, and certainly that’s going to be minimal, if you can see it at all, and it’s considerable distance from the water and it is on the 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/27/02) road behind your property. So it works out pretty good all the way around, I think. So, with these factors in mind, I move that we approve the application as submitted. Duly adopted this 27 day of November, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Hayes NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stone MR. LAPPER-Thank you, and Happy Thanksgiving to everybody. MR. BROWN-At the last regular meeting we started with Mr. Salvador’s appeal. The thought was to have a special meeting last week, and we just carried it over to this regular meeting. So, Mr. Salvador’s back to discuss his appeal, and I’m here to offer the Town’s side. So, for some reason it didn’t make it on the agenda for a revision, but I think everybody on the Board was informed that he was going to be on. MR. SALVADOR-Before Mr. Lapper leaves, I’d like to, as part of your solution to the project on West Mountain Road, maybe we could trade three acres of recreation commercial land for three acres of residential underwater land, listen, seriously, then you could build the ice sheet as an ice boat, okay. Let Mother Nature do it, put a boat sticker on it, and build it up. You could build it 10 feet during the winter, just keep piling ice up, and then let it melt during the summer. MR. ABBATE-Counselor, if you’re representing Mr. Salvador, you’re batting two and two. MR. LAPPER-Good night. NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 3-2002 JOHN SALVADOR, JR. APPEAL FROM THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S “POSITION” (DETERMINATION) THAT BECAUSE BOAT DOCK AND BOATHOUSES WERE REGISTERED IN 1981 AND 1982 PER 6NYCRR PART 646 (JULY 3, 1981) THEY WERE GRANDFATHERED AND THEREFORE LEGALLY PRE-EXISTING. TAX MAP NO.: NONE INDICATED PROPERTY LOCATION: LG SHORELINE FROM TOWN OF LG TO TOWN OF FORT ANN JOHN SALVADOR, JR. & KATHLEEN SALVADOR, PRESENT MR. HAYES-Before Mr. Salvador begins his presentation, where does the communication that we’ve received, Craig, I mean, where do we? MR. BROWN-I gave you a copy of the memo I received from Town Counsel yesterday regarding the issue of standing and aggrieved parties when it comes to appeals of a Zoning Administrator determination, or when it comes to any appeal that’s heard before the Zoning Board of Appeals. What’s an aggrieved party, what constitutes someone who really should be able to appear in front of the Board, definitioning, basically. So that’s what you have. I’d originally asked for this when this appeal had originally been filed, and I pushed until I got it yesterday, because I knew that I was going to be here at the meeting and I just wanted to be able to have that to give to you. MR. BRYANT-So why did you ask for it in the first place? MR. BROWN-Because I had a question over whether Mr. Salvador has actual standing to make an appeal of this decision. MR. BRYANT-On your opinion now, after reading that? MR. BROWN-Does Mr. Salvador have standing? I don’t believe that he does, no, not on this particular opinion, on this decision. MR. HIMES-Does it make any difference, wasn’t he the one that originally asked something, which resulted in your making a determination? MR. BROWN-Would that have made a difference? MR. HIMES-Well, in that he was a party to the thing coming into existence in the first place. Would that strength the position of an aggrieved party, as opposed to someone who comes out of the blue, on some matter that they aren’t impacted by, and interjects themselves in a way that I agree with you, or agree with the law office that wrote this thing, that it opens the door for all kinds of perhaps even frivolous things, people walking in the door, they have no financial or any other kind of negative impact as a result of some decision, 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/27/02) but I’m just wondering rather in this case, from a legal standpoint, whether the fact, it’s my understanding this whole thing came about because you asked for something. Well, we might as well get into it, I guess. MR. HAYES-Well, I’m not sure that’s the case, and I want to talk to you guys about that before we start. I understand where you’re coming from. You’re asking whether that changes the test of whether, the perspective of Counsel. MR. HIMES-Whether he’s aggrieved or not. MR. HAYES-Right, whether that still falls within that analysis. MR. HIMES-Because he was a party of it being where it is now. MR. HAYES-Correct. MR. HIMES-Okay. Thank you. MR. HAYES-But I guess, before you get into your overall case, Mr. Salvador, I think it makes sense to address that standing thing. MR. SALVADOR-Absolutely. MR. HAYES-Because if the Board feels that you don’t have it, then we really don’t have to entertain the appeal. MR. SALVADOR-Very good. MR. HAYES-So can you stick to that, and then we’re going to have to examine that, and then we’ll go for it. MR. SALVADOR-Well, first of all, I’d like the benefit of the memo. MR. BROWN-It’s a memo that was prepared by the Town Counsel for Town Staff, and it’s confidential. MR. ABBATE-That’s privileged information. MR. SALVADOR-All right. Well, basically Town Counsel is taking the position that we have no standing. MR. BROWN-Taking the position that the argument can be made. Yes, I would take that position. Town Counsel took the position to offer definitions of what standing is and what constitutes standing and what doesn’t. So, based on that memo, I would take the position that you don’t. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. Just to review how we got here, the Zoning Administrator made a determination with regard to an application before the Planning Board for a site plan review, and as the applicant was required to obtain to get a Special Use Permit, and the determination that the Zoning Administrator made dealt with grandfathering privileges that the applicant would be entitled to, as they went for their site plan approval. I do not agree that the applicant is entitled to grandfathering privileges, and that’s why I filed my Notice of Appeal. Now, as to whether or not we have standing here, first of all, the Town Code Chapter 179-16-050, on the subject of Appeals, “An appeal from an action, decision, or rule by the Zoning Administrator regarding a requirement of this chapter may be made only to the Zoning Board of Appeals within 60 days of such decision or action. An action, decision or ruling of the Planning Board or Zoning Board of Appeals pursuant to this chapter may be reviewed at the instance of any aggrieved person in accordance with Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, but application for such review must be made not later than 30 days from the effective date of the decision or ruling or the date when the action or omission occurred, whichever comes later.” Town law, this Appeals section in the Zoning Ordinance comes from Section 267, which mandates that the Town Board appoint a Zoning Board of Appeals, and that the Board of Appeals shall hear and decide appeals from and review any determination of an administrative official charged with enforcing an ordinance adopted pursuant to Article 16, which is zoning. Further, that such appeal may be taken by any person aggrieved. In this case, we feel aggrieved. Now I guess it’s up to us to substantiate that we are aggrieved. We think we have standing in this matter, and we assert unequivocally that we have standing. With regard to standing, there’s a subject called, you have standing if you are within the sphere of the subject matter, if you have a zone of interest in the matter that’s going on. We definitely are within the sphere of influence of what’s going on at the Planning Board. We own real property in the Town of Queensbury. We pay local taxes, school taxes and property district taxes in the Town of Queensbury. We are subject, and have met all compliance standards of the Town Code. The zoning and all provisions and additions thereof, we have qualified for Special Use Permits as these applicants are on their way to qualify for, as well as building permits issued by the Town, which is a basis for Mr. Brown determining that they’re grandfathered. Legally speaking, we are within the sphere of influence or the zone of interest of the Town Code as it pertains to Special Use Permits for Class A marinas on Lake George. If the Zoning Administrator’s determination of grandfathering privileges is allowed to stand for these other applicants, we 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/27/02) can show that we were held to a standard different and higher by the Town, as we were made to qualify for the same building permits used by Mr. Brown to justify his determination of privilege. This action would deny us our 14 Amendment right of equal protection. So we are within the zone of influence. We are th affected by the Code, and if these applicants can enjoy a privilege, and it’s a privilege, of grandfathering, a privilege that was not given to us as we had to qualify for the same permits, okay, and I can show that we’ve done that, then we would be denied our equal protection rights. MR. BRYANT-I’m just trying to understand this. So what you’re saying is that you’re aggrieved in retrospect, not in the current timeframe? MR. SALVADOR-Yes. MR. BRYANT-So in other words, you had to adhere to certain standards in the past. MR. SALVADOR-Yes. MR. BRYANT-And then therefore these people should adhere to those standards in the present, but how does it affect you currently? MR. SALVADOR-Excuse me. The permit that Mr. Brown is using to substantiate that they’re grandfathered is the same permit that we had to get. Okay. The same permit that we had to get to do the same thing, yet we had to jump through additional hoops to get that permit than these applicants had to. We had to demonstrate, and I have the record here. MR. BRYANT-I’m understanding that. I’m understanding that, but I’m trying to understand how it affects you now. What effect does this ruling have on you now? I’m not talking about what you did 10 years from now, five years from now. I’m talking about what happened now. MR. SALVADOR-My contention is that. MR. BRYANT-Do you have docks or property that are going to be affected? MR. SALVADOR-Absolutely. Let me continue. Grandfathering is a privilege. Grandfathering is allowed only if the object of the grandfathering is legally pre-existing. You’re not allowed to grandfather something that is not legally pre-existing. MR. HAYES-That’s your argument for the appeal. MR. SALVADOR-No, excuse me. My argument is that Mr. Brown has determined, as he has grandfathered these applications, that they are legally pre-existing. My contention is they are not. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Let me stop for a second. Mr. Brown, have you made that determination? MR. HAYES-I think we’re getting out of the rubric of. MR. BROWN-We’re getting not one base off track, we’re getting two bases off track here. MR. HAYES-Right. MR. ABBATE-Yes. MR. BROWN-I think we’re trying to figure whether he has standing or not. MR. ABBATE-Whether he has standing. MR. BROWN-Not what my determination was or wasn’t. MR. ABBATE-Let me ask Mr. Salvador this, then. Mr. Salvador, do you believe that you have been denied relief? That’s one of the pre-requisites for standing, by decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals. MR. SALVADOR-You haven’t made a determination yet. MR. ABBATE-But do you believe right now that you’ve been denied relief of any type, in the past, or by the Zoning Board’s decision? MR. BROWN-I think the question should be, is the appellant taking the position that this determination denies them any relief. 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/27/02) MR. ABBATE-Right. All right. Let me rephrase that. Does the determination by the Zoning Administrator, has this determination done a number of things, Number One, denied your relief, Number Two, adversely impacted, if you will, your interest? MR. SALVADOR-Yes. MR. HAYES-Now? MR. SALVADOR-Yes, it has adversely impacted my interest. Yes. MR. ABBATE-How? MR. SALVADOR-It has denied me equal protection. MR. HAYES-You’re back to a retro. MR. SALVADOR-No. There’s no Statute of Limitations on equal protection. MR. HAYES-There is on whether you have standing to appeal this upcoming determination. MR. SALVADOR-There is no, the determination has been made. These applicants, if they were not grandfathered, if Mr. Brown had not made the determination that these applicants were grandfathered, these applicants could not qualify for their Special Use Permit. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. How does that affect you now? MR. HAYES-Differently than anyone else here? MR. SALVADOR-Because we had to get additional permits, the same building permit that he’s grandfathered, we hold, but we were held to a higher standard when we had to apply for that permit. MR. ABBATE-And what year was this? MR. SALVADOR-1976. MR. ABBATE-How many decisions have been made by all the Zoning Administrators grandfathering any piece of property within the Town of Queensbury since 1976? MR. SALVADOR-In this particular case I know of none. The permit that Mr. Brown. MR. ABBATE-You’re speaking specifically of Smith & Hopper? MR. SALVADOR-Yes. The permit that Mr. Brown has grandfathered was issued in 1979 I believe, okay. We got the same permit in 1976, but I can show you what we had to go through to qualify for that permit, the Browns were not required to. MR. BRYANT-Yes, but I’m sure that all the regulations and everything was different in 1976. We’re talking about 30 years ago, and something that’s happening today, and how it affected you 30 years ago. MR. HAYES-And how that effects the status today. You’re right. MR. BRYANT-I don’t understand how it does. MR. SALVADOR-Excuse me. I’ll explain. The circumstances and the Codes applicable at that time were the same for both of us. Okay. They were the same for both of us. Now, I can show you where, one of the applicants, okay, was given a building permit in the absence of other permits that he needed under the Code, at that time, he did not apply for. He was not made to apply for, and today Mr. Brown wants to grandfather that permit as legally pre-existing. MR. BROWN-If there were other permits that that applicant was required to gain at the time, they weren’t Town requirements. MR. SALVADOR-Yes, they were. MRS. SALVADOR-Yes, they were. MR. SALVADOR-I can show you that. MR. BROWN-The Town required them to get a Lake George Park Commission permit? 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/27/02) MR. SALVADOR-They required us to get them, under the ordinance. MR. BROWN-It was in the Town Ordinance? MR. SALVADOR-Under the Ordinance at that time. MR. HAYES-Well, we’re still arguing the merits. We’re getting off track. MR. BRYANT-Let’s just talk about that for a second. Because, you know, sometimes, sometimes rules and regulations change 30 years down the road, and so an individual that applied for something in 1975 or ’76, you know, the requirements may be different. MR. SALVADOR-I understand that, and that’s not the point. The requirements were the same for everyone at that time. MR. BROWN-Which I would respond, if there was a wrong that was done then, that was the time to address it. If that permit was issued and they were held to a different standard than you were at the same time, that was when you should have appealed that, and I understand what he’s saying, but. MR. BRYANT-He’s saying that that wrong occurred, is occurring now, retrospect to that time, you know, and I understand what he’s saying, but I’m saying, in the real world, what does that mean? I mean, what affect does that really have, right now, in 2002? It’s 2002, right? MRS. SALVADOR-It means that these people will be getting site plan review and special permits illegally, because their docks were not legally constructed, and were not legally registered at that time, and you cannot grandfather something that is illegal. That’s exactly what that means. MR. HIMES-But to continue on, maybe some of us have an argument or no argument with that, but the aggrieved part, which I think is what the Chairman wanted us to settle, that because of that, does that introduce unfair competition to your business, or what is happening? MR. SALVADOR-We’re not in the same business. MRS. SALVADOR-We’re not in the same business. MR. SALVADOR-In fact, they don’t claim to be in business. MR. HIMES-Well, the impact, I guess, you can correct me if I’m wrong, Mr. Chairman. I think we were going to start with trying to establish the aggrieved, and I don’t know how many of us can really define that on this side of the equation over here, but that I was kind of thinking that maybe something like, well, here’s what happened to me because, or what is going to happen to me, because of this decision, be it some kind of a financial impact or some personal, something other than which I hold high, your regard for what’s right and what’s wrong, and back to talking about whether the whole community, I mean, everybody pays, almost, everybody pays taxes and everything, your introduction, we all do all that. The thing about, you qualified for use permits, and therefore that makes you have standing. I think we need to follow that line of thinking a little more, and in connection with, if standing requires that you somehow be separated from the rest of the general community who might come in and say the same thing as you. Maybe we should consider that, I don’t know, but from what is being said here, if standing is defined as what, and I’m not sure what it is. MR. HAYES-I’m going to step in here and say, Mr. Salvador, that you need to make your final argument why you have standing, okay. Summarize that argument, and then we’re going to, what I’m going to do is proceed to a vote of whether that argument carries, in our opinion, or not, and if that carries, then we’ll move on to the merits of the application, but what would happen is we’re crossing back and forth between the argument. We need to get that clarified. MR. ABBATE-You’re right. That’s a good point. MRS. SALVADOR-Before he does that, may I ask a question? MR. HAYES-Certainly. MRS. SALVADOR-I know we cannot get a copy of your attorney’s papers, but is he basing his determination on a court case, a judge’s decision, or on the real law that was made by the legislature? MR. ABBATE-I can’t answer that question. That’s privileged information. MR. HAYES-I don’t think we can provide you with a copy of that, but I think that they could provide legal background. 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/27/02) MR. BROWN-Yes. The Town Counsel typically provides responses to Town Staff based on, Number One, the Town of Queensbury Town Code, which is founded almost directly within New York State Town Law. So it’s a combination of both, Town Law and Town Code. MR. SALVADOR-The Town law allows anyone to appeal your determination. There are no restrictions. MR. BROWN-The Town law allows the Zoning Board, requires the Zoning Board, to hear any and all appeals by aggrieved parties. MR. SALVADOR-Right, and we are aggrieved parties. MR. MC NULTY-Well, that’s what we’re trying to determine. MR. HAYES-I guess, Mr. Salvador, is there anything you want to add to the aggrieved party argument? MR. SALVADOR-I’ll refer to the famous Sunbright case. Okay, and I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been up against this, the subject of standing, okay. Because when the attorneys don’t know what else to do, then you bring them the issue of standing, okay, and, you know, as aggrieved parties, the courts have determined that you should take a very liberal interpretation. I mean, you’re dealing with our rights, and our rights should not be brought down to a very, very narrow window. That’s wrong. It should be a broad breadth. You should give us the benefit of the doubt. In any case, in the Sunbright case, they say that the petitioning party must have a legally, a legal interest that is or will be affected by the zoning determination. We do have a legal interest. We are within the sphere of interest. We are subject to the same regulations. We have qualified for the same permits, yet we were held to a different standard, and we can show that. If we’re not all held to the same standard, and Mr. Brown is allowing these people, with the privilege of grandfathering, he’s allowing them to be judged by a different standard, and that’s what’s wrong, and that’s, we have a 14 Amendment protection to equal protection of the law. That means we’re all treated the same, th not that we have special hoops that we have to jump through. That’s what’s going on here, and I can show it. I can show you. This is from the Town record. I haven’t fabricated this record. This is a process we went through to qualify for our permit in 1976, and in 1979, another applicant, the exact same subject, the exact same permit, did not have to go through those things, and Mr. Brown is willing to grandfather that. That’s what’s wrong, the double standard, and that’s denying us our rights. MR. HAYES-I respectfully disagree, but what I will do at this particular junction is we’ll see where it goes. MR. SALVADOR-Excuse me. We adjourned last week for purposes of continuing this appeal. It was not my understanding that the issue of standing would be brought up tonight. I found this out in the last minutes here. MR. HAYES-But you’ll agree that it’s germane to the process? MR. SALVADOR-Mr. Brown raised the question in August, September. We have been in and out of this session, I asked this Board for an expedited appeal because of the importance of this thing, so these people can get on with their permits. I was denied that, while positioning goes on, and now, at the 11 Hour, we’re th faced with a standing challenge? Has anyone, has anyone ever come before this Board and been faced with a standing challenge? MR. ABBATE-Yes. I challenge people on standing, and you can check the records. I do. I have. MR. HAYES-That’s what I mean. We’re essentially allowed to examine the cases as they come, including your appeal. MR. ABBATE-You can reject an appeal, but not because the appellant doesn’t have standing. MR. HAYES-Certainly. If you don’t have standing, you don’t have standing. Are you saying that that’s not a logical criteria for proceeding with a case? MR. SALVADOR-It’s not a judgment, I don’t think it’s a judgment that you people can make. That’s not within your purview. You are here to hear an appeal. MR. HAYES-So it’s in the Code, and it says the Zoning Board should hear appeals from an aggrieved party. To me, that’s what that means. MR. SALVADOR-The zoning code says that you hear appeals. MR. HAYES-From aggrieved parties. 36 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/27/02) MR. BROWN-Our Zoning Ordinance says that the Zoning Board hears appeals, and that if you’re aggrieved from a decision, you can take it to Article 78 proceeding, but I think it may be implied that in order to appear before the Town Zoning Board, the local Zoning Board, the same standard would apply. MR. ABBATE-Yes. A non-decision, a non-determination, he can go to a 78. We can do a non-decision, a non-determination. Then he has the opportunity to take the route to go the 78, on his standing. MR. HAYES-Right. MR. SALVADOR-The purpose of a local Zoning Board of Appeals is to keep these things out of the courts. That’s what, you’re a quasi-judicial panel. It’s not expected, it’s not expected that the citizen, on an issue like this, that can be determined on a local level, has to burden the Supreme Court system with an Article 78, and frankly I’ll tell you something, Article 78’s have proven to be dead end streets. They are dead end streets. They are no privilege whatsoever. Examine the record, but that’s what a local. MRS. SALVADOR-May I just make one other comment, too? John mentioned that, you know, this has been going on for a while. We were here at the October meeting, all ready to present this, no question of standing or anything. We very graciously agreed not to do that that evening, because your Chairman was ill, and he wanted to get home. So we said, fine. We will not do it this evening. We will come back for your next meeting. We came back for the next meeting, and then your Chairman said, well, we should hear from both parties. So, we will have a special meeting, and we will have Mr. Brown and the Salvadors there and we will discuss this. Again, nothing about standing. All of a sudden today, you get a letter from your attorney, who has known for months that this was going on. Now, that does not set right with me. I’m sorry. It takes a lot to get me upset, but I am upset, because we are aggrieved. No one is paying any attention to us. They have not paid attention to us for 30 years. As John says, we have to go through the extra hoops, and the majority, well, I won’t say the majority because a lot of you are new, but some of you have been here that time, and you know, and if you look back in the records, you will know. So I would like to know what came up all of a sudden where your attorney today said, no. We can’t do this because they don’t have any standing. Then this’ll all go under the rug and it’ll never be heard. MR. HAYES-Based on Staff workload, though, there has been times when additional information has come forward during the process. We’ve dealt with it before, and I’m sure we’ll have to have it some time in the future. It’s a matter of pursuit of the best information that’s out there I guess. MR. SALVADOR-I would like the opportunity to show you what we had to go through to get the permit that Mr. Brown wants to grandfather, that the other applicant, the one who’s going to get the benefit of a privilege, grandfathering is a privilege. MR. HAYES-That’s still the merits of the argument, Mr. Salvador. MR. SALVADOR-No, no, no. Not at all. This establishes, this will establish that there is a double standard, and a double standard denies us our equal protection. MR. ABBATE-But, see, that’s all you had to say, because that was my question to you. You believe that grandfathering in the Smith and Hopper appeal, as a compromise, has adversely impacted you because you believe? MR. SALVADOR-No, the basis of our appeal is that the grandfathering privilege to the Smiths and, I’ll say the Smiths because it applies also to the Hoppers. The grandfathering privilege is not in order because the object being grandfathered is an illegal, pre-existing use. MR. ABBATE-And it denied you equal justice under the law. Is that what you’re saying? MR. SALVADOR-No. Because, look at the reason for the appeal. The reason for my standing is that if we don’t have standing, we’re being denied equal protection. The reason for the appeal is that the object being grandfathered is an illegal, pre-existing use which we can show, and does not deserve the privilege of grandfathering. MR. ABBATE-Yes, but you see, you can’t address that issue unless you have standing first. MR. SALVADOR-Excuse me? MR. ABBATE-You can’t address that issue unless you have standing first. MRS. SALVADOR-And that’s exactly why we want to do it, because otherwise, it will not come out. It will be swept under the rug. MR. SALVADOR-Do you know how many Smiths and Hoppers are out there? Not only in the Town of Queensbury? 37 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/27/02) MRS. SALVADOR-This is just the beginning. MR. SALVADOR-This is just the beginning. MR. HAYES-But the scenario is, if you don’t have standing, and we allow you to make the merits of. MR. SALVADOR-Then who does have standing if we don’t? MR. HAYES-Somebody that’s aggrieved, now, aggrieved now by that decision. MR. SALVADOR-If we’re not aggrieved, who is? There’s got to be somebody out there with standing. MR. HAYES-A neighbor. The person that made the determination, that the determination was made for or against. MR. SALVADOR-Did the neighbor have to get the permit? MR. HAYES-It still impacts his property. MR. SALVADOR-We’re neighbors. We’re just one bay away. We’re in the same town. MR. URRICO-Can I ask a question of Staff? Is this the only way the Salvadors can make the point they’re trying to make? MR. BROWN-No. MR. SALVADOR-You know if we went to court on this without coming here, what they’d tell us? You haven’t exhausted your administrative remedies. MR. ABBATE-That’s correct. MR. SALVADOR-That’s what they’d tell us. MR. ABBATE-That’s correct. MR. SALVADOR-They’d kick us out. MR. BROWN-That wasn’t what I was referring to. MR. SALVADOR-Well, excuse me. I have experience in this, and I know the process. Okay, and the first line of defense in an Article 78 on this subject, if we did not come to this Board, okay, would be you haven’t exhausted your administrative remedies. MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, I just want to say something. We’re going round and round here. I mean, you could have heard the whole thing by now. So, either let’s hear it or let’s not hear it, one of the two, but let’s do something. MRS. SALVADOR-Well, I will tell you at the last meeting the Chairman took a vote and everyone agreed to hear it. That was why the special meeting was scheduled, but then it was unscheduled and that’s why we’re here tonight. MR. SALVADOR-That’s why we’re here tonight. MRS. SALVADOR-They did. They took a vote, and everyone agreed, yes, we want to hear the story, and I kiddingly said it was 75 pages. It’s not really. MR. HIMES-I remember. I have my feeling about that. MRS. SALVADOR-That vote was already taken. That was settled last week. MR. SALVADOR-That was settled last week. There was no question of standing. MRS. SALVADOR-None whatsoever. MR. SALVADOR-None whatsoever. MR. HAYES-But I think there is now. 38 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/27/02) MR. SALVADOR-Well, how did it all of a sudden come up? MR. HAYES-Well, I mean, are we supposed to, because we’ve got the information tonight, are we supposed to deny that it exists? MR. SALVADOR-What information did you have? MR. HAYES-We’ve been provided a memorandum from our Counsel that indicates. MR. SALVADOR-It’s not very timely. It was asked for when? MR. HAYES-I don’t think anybody would disagree with the fact that it’s not timely, but the fact that it exists. I guess, myself, I would have to be denying my good sense, after reading this, to go and proceed with the hearing. Because I think it falls squarely on the information we’ve been provided, but we can get around this. I mean, I think at this point you’ve made your case as to why you think you have standing. It’s time for the Board. MR. SALVADOR-I would like to continue to make my case why we have standing, if I can demonstrate that there is a double standard, okay. I can demonstrate that our permits, our permits are legal, because we did all the things that had to be done under the Code at the time, and yet another permit was issued without having to demonstrate the same thing we had to demonstrate, and that’s the basis for my contention that they don’t enjoy a grandfathering privilege today because they’re illegally pre-existing permits. MR. HAYES-I’m not sure that people disagree, you know, with the possibility of your argument being true, as far as the merits of that thing. I don’t understand where you. MR. SALVADOR-Well, if I don’t have standing, tell me who does. That’s the only, who does? MR. HAYES-The people that are aggrieved. MR. SALVADOR-We’re aggrieved. MR. HAYES-I don’t agree. MR. BROWN-I think some of the obvious standards for defining a grievance, I guess, if you will, is are you a property owner? MR. SALVADOR-Yes. MR. BROWN-Are you an owner of the property that was affected by this determination? MR. SALVADOR-We are owner of property subject to the regulations that are affected by this determination. Yes, Mr. Brown, we are within the sphere of influence. Those are the words of the court. MRS. SALVADOR-The zone of interest. MR. SALVADOR-The zone of interest, and the sphere of influence. Those are the words. MR. BROWN-Do you have any right, title, or interest in the Smith or Hopper property? MR. SALVADOR-No, I don’t. MR. BROWN-Do you have property that’s adjacent to those properties, immediately adjacent? MR. SALVADOR-Why does it have to be immediately adjacent? MR. BROWN-I’m just asking the question. Yes or no? MR. SALVADOR-In broad terms, Mr. Brown, in the case law, zone of interest, sphere or interest, those are the words used, zone of influence. MR. HAYES-They’re not the words used in our memorandum, at all. I don’t see that phrase. MRS. SALVADOR-But ours comes through the legislature, not from the courts. The legislature makes the laws, not the courts. MR. HAYES-I understand. MR. SALVADOR-Here’s the decision. 39 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/27/02) MR. HIMES-We’ve got to vote or abstain or something here. MR. HAYES-Right. MR. SALVADOR-Well, this Board, I reiterate, in your absence last week, okay, this Board determined they were going to hear this appeal. Okay, but Mr. Brown was not present. Nobody could figure out why. MR. BRYANT-Here are the minutes, right here, from the last meeting. MR. SALVADOR-I haven’t gotten them. MRS. SALVADOR-It was either Mr. Urrico or Mr. Underwood who said, who started the ball rolling and said they would like to hear. MR. SALVADOR-The appeal. MR. HAYES-They said they wanted to table it, essentially. MR. SALVADOR-No. They wanted to table it because Mr. Brown wasn’t present. MRS. SALVADOR-And they thought Mr. Brown should be present. MR. ABBATE-I think you’re right. MRS. SALVADOR-I know I’m right. MR. HIMES-I, too, said let’s hear what Craig has to say, Mr. Brown has to say, rather than just one side of it. MR. HAYES-Right. MR. HIMES-Let’s get them both here and hear both sides of the argument. MR. HAYES-That’s true. MR. BROWN-Now you’ve heard it. Now you have to make a decision. MR. HAYES-Right. I mean, we’re getting back into the merits. I mean, part of Craig’s argument here is that there isn’t standing, and that we have to determine if there isn’t standing, then there’s no point of proceeding with the appeal. If there is standing, then we should proceed with the appeal. MR. HIMES-But we’re not going to hear anymore about the standing matter. We’ve heard the same thing two or three times. MR. HAYES-That’s what I’m saying. It’s time to take a vote on the appeal. MR. BROWN-I think you need to consider the legal opinion that you’ve received, and you need to consider Mr. Salvador’s arguments. MR. SALVADOR-Excuse me. We are prejudiced by the timeliness of your legal opinion. MRS. SALVADOR-Exactly. MR. SALVADOR-We were involved in an appeal. Okay. The process was working, and all of a sudden we get, out of left field, we get advice from your attorney, long ago asked, for some reason didn’t respond, that all of a sudden we don’t have standing. MR. HIMES-Well, why don’t you wait until you see what the result of the vote is, and then. MR. SALVADOR-Concerning? MR. HAYES-Your standing. MR. HIMES-Your standing, and if you don’t have standing, then you go to whatever the next step. MR. SALVADOR-There is no next step. MRS. SALVADOR-It would just go under the rug, be forgotten, and all these illegal docks will stay in. 40 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/27/02) MR. SALVADOR-And they will stay in. MRS. SALVADOR-That’s all. We’ve been here 30 years. We know how it works. MR. HIMES-We understand what you’ve said. Excuse me, Mr. Brown. We understand what you’ve said, and the same thing gets said again and again in different words, but I think what Mr. Brown just said, you’ve heard, we’ve read what we’ve gotten, and you’ve heard what he had to say, and as Mr. Brown said, all right, make your decision. MR. HAYES-Okay. Well, I’m, I guess it is that time. MR. SALVADOR-Excuse me. Point of order. I was going to ask this question before this started this evening. I would ask any of you on this Board to recuse yourself, if you have any interest in Class A marinas, waterfront property on Lake George. Mr. McNulty, I read in the newspaper where you’re a recently licensed realtor. MR. MC NULTY-I’ve been licensed for several years. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. In any case, you deal in Lake George waterfront property. MR. MC NULTY-Occasionally. MRS. SALVADOR-It only takes one time. MR. SALVADOR-I would ask you to consider. MR. HAYES-To make him necessarily prejudicial? MR. SALVADOR-Excuse me. This goes to property values. Okay. It goes to property values. MR. HAYES-Do you own property on Lake George? MR. MC NULTY-I don’t own property on Lake George. I’ve never sold a waterfront property. MR. SALVADOR-It doesn’t mean you won’t in the future. MR. MC NULTY-It doesn’t mean somebody else here might not get a realtor’s license in the future and do the same thing. I don’t have a conflict of interest and I will not recuse myself. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. Fine. All I can do is ask, but Mr. Hayes, do you have any interest in any business, Class A marina, anything like that on Lake George? MR. HAYES-I don’t, and I will recuse myself if I think I need to recuse myself, on an ethical basis. I don’t intend to recuse myself on this matter, and I intend to move to a motion to settle the issue of standing, now, and if you want to appeal that you can, of course. MR. SALVADOR-Well, what we will ask, I mean, this site plan approval and these marina permit approvals the Planning Board is compelled to entertain and issue, is a serious issue. It’s a property rights issue, and I really think, if we don’t have standing, if we don’t have standing, I ask you who does? Somebody out there has to have standing. MR. HAYES-We’ve had it defined for us who has standing. MR. SALVADOR-And we are aggrieved, and I can show you, I can show you how, if this grandfathering of these permits is allowed, okay, then a double standard exists in this Town, and as such, we are aggrieved in that we have been denied our 14 amendment right to equal protection. th MR. HIMES-Mr. Chairman, I’m ready to make a motion on this, on the standing issue. MR. HAYES-Okay. MR. HIMES-If you’re ready. MR. HAYES-That would be fine. MR. HIMES-All right. MR. BRYANT-I thought you were going to poll everybody? 41 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/27/02) MR. HIMES-Do you want to poll? MR. BRYANT-Let’s poll. MR. HAYES-We’ll just do a motion, and if it passes, it passes. If it doesn’t, it doesn’t. It’s the same thing, I guess. Right? MR. HIMES-All right. MOTION THAT WE CONSIDER MR. SALVADOR AS HAVING STANDING IN THIS MATTER, NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 3-2002, AND I RECOGNIZE THAT THIS IS PROBABLY NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH THE COMMUNICATION THAT I RECEIVED AND READ THIS EVENING FROM LEGAL COUNSEL TO THE TOWN., Introduced by Norman Himes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: The reason why I draw the difference is it’s hard to read a short communication like this without references and really understand where they’re coming from, rather than their conclusions or their recommendation, which is kind of what this is, a recommendation, and I don’t accept it on the basis that there may be issues, items, things involving the planning or the zoning which have an impact that’s very focused and more simple than this kind of issue relating to rights for all of us. All of us, in the Town and in the State and in the Country are impacted by something of this nature and an aggrieved person. We all fall into that, I believe, and that doesn’t match up to the criteria which I read here and that’s why I do not agree with it, and I think that simply Mr. Salvador or the applicant here, appellant, whatever he is, is standing and representing those of us who, in some way, however remote in time or place, can be affected by the kind of thing that could happen here by not allowing this to proceed, and therefore I make the motion that we recognize Mr. Salvador and Mrs. Salvador as having standing before this Board. Duly adopted this 27 day of November, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant NOES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes ABSENT: Mr. Stone MR. HAYES-The motion is carried. We’ll proceed to the merits of the appeal. MR. SALVADOR-Thank you. MRS. SALVADOR-Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Can we take about a ten second break? MR. HAYES-Well, we’re going to have to make it limited. It is the night before Thanksgiving. We’re faced with a substantial appeal here. MR. ABBATE-All right. MR. SALVADOR-All right. Yes, we are, and we’re easy. If you want to table this until next month. MR. ABBATE-It’s okay with me. I don’t object. MRS. SALVADOR-As long as standing doesn’t come up again. MR. ABBATE-That issue has been resolved. That’s been resolved. MR. HAYES-That was fairly voted on and carried. That’s the end of that. MR. SALVADOR-I understand the hour is late. I understand, but as I said, the first time we tabled, in October, these are very serious issues. They have basin wide significance, and the two applications before the Board are not the first, are not the last, and it touches all the towns. Queensbury, we have probably more serious problems with this proliferation of this sort of thing, but in any case, we would be willing to table until next month, the December calendar. MR. ABBATE-We have one meeting next month, I do believe. MR. BROWN-One meeting. MR. SALVADOR-And which date is that? 42 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/27/02) MR. BROWN-I think whatever the earliest Wednesday is. I think it’s probably the 18, I would guess. th Don’t hold me to that. I don’t have a calendar. MR. URRICO-Bruce said it’s the only meeting. There’s two items on the agenda. MR. MC NULTY-The 18 is the third Wednesday. th MR. HAYES-The fact that the applicant is willing to cooperate with the Board, as far as the hour and stuff, I think it would be appropriate to cooperate in any way to make that possible. MR. MC NULTY-Is that going to fit on the 18, though, with the agenda, or are we going to be faced with th the same thing? MR. BROWN-It’s an extremely light agenda. There may be one, maybe two items. MR. HAYES-I think it would probably be the preference of the Board to make it fit anyway. MR. SALVADOR-Now, the other thing, just a point of order, but you have alternates, and, you know, we see different faces up there, and we’d like to see, you know, some, as we make these arguments, that there’s some kind of continuity from one of these meetings to the next. That’s all I ask. MR. BRYANT-Well, the other thing is if you provided documentation to the Board ahead of time, it would be distributed to everybody and they would be able to familiarize themselves with it. MR. BROWN-And along those lines, if I could just add this, and not to make it too longwinded, but if there’s information that Mr. Salvador would like to submit, that goes to his argument against my determination, it’s not stuff that I’ve seen. We haven’t talked about this before, and if I saw it, it may change my decision. MR. ABBATE-Correct. MR. BROWN-But I’m not going to hear it at a meeting and change my mind at the meeting. MR. ABBATE-No. What you’re suggesting is that you submit any information that you have to the Board prior to the meeting. MR. SALVADOR-Yes. Let’s go to that subject. It’s called mootness, the mootness doctrine. Mr. Brown could very well, between now and then, reverse himself, in which case our appeal would be considered moot. However, we would ask this Board to hear it, in any case, because it’s an event that is likely to reoccur. If it reoccurs, it’s likely to evade review, because we might not know about it. We might not be in town. No one else will pick up the ball. MR. ABBATE-Yes, but you can’t set the parameters by using such words as reversal. The words could be perception and misinterpretation. In other words, there could be change based upon perception and misinterpretation. It doesn’t have to be a reversal. MR. SALVADOR-Well, whatever. For whatever reason he takes another position. MR. ABBATE-You have to leave some leeway. MR. SALVADOR-Yes, okay. For whatever reason he takes another position, which causes our argument to become moot, okay. MR. ABBATE-That’s fair. MR. SALVADOR-And in that case, we have to take a look at this, the subject, and we would ask you to hear the appeal in any case, because as I said, this is likely to occur again. MR. ABBATE-Yes, but Mr. Salvador, I know it’s getting late, but this is important. If I were the Zoning Administrator, I would really appreciate you forwarding to me your argument because you may have information that I was not aware of that may very well cause me to change my position. So why go through a wrangle when we could resolve this perhaps another way. If you have information that I, as the Zoning Administrator, have not had access to, then I really would like to have it, because your argument may be sound, and if it’s sound, I will support your position, and the Zoning Administrator. Am I right? MR. BROWN-I think that’s what I just said. MR. ABBATE-Yes, but just say I’m right. 43 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/27/02) MR. BROWN-You’re right, Mr. Abbate. MR. ABBATE-That makes me feel better. MR. HIMES-We can’t hear anything, can we, if there’s no appeal? I mean, what have you got to appeal, if it’s moot? I mean, how would that come up? MR. BROWN-We’d have to discuss the standing again. MR. SALVADOR-Yes. There are provisions in the law for courts. You are a quasi-judicial court, to hear an appeal, to hear an appeal, and to try a case, based on the fact that although the immediate issue is moot, it is an event that is likely to reoccur. Okay. There is no question that there are going to be other applicants coming down the road. They are also going to look for a grandfathering relief, okay. There should be a standard set, and only you can set that standard, okay. Only you can set that standard. It’s likely to reoccur. It’s likely to evade review because the Salvadors might not be here. MR. ABBATE-That’s why it’s important you put those words in writing and submit it to the Zoning Administrator, to help him evaluate this whole thing. You’ve got to submit your documentation, to make it easier for everybody. MR. HIMES-John is just saying that if Craig were to, something came up, that Craig hasn’t seen or known, that it could be changed, and there’s nothing to appeal. MR. ABBATE-Correct. That’s my point. MR. HIMES-But he’s saying he wants to appeal anyway. We don’t have any procedure. MR. HAYES-If there’s no other business before the Board. MR. BROWN-Did we make a tabling motion? MR. HAYES-Yes, we need to make an official tabling motion. MOTION TO TABLE NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 3-2002 JOHN SALVADOR, JR., Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: To the December 18, 2002 meeting. Duly adopted this 27 day of November, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stone MR. HAYES-The meeting is adjourned. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Paul Hayes, Acting Chairman 44